Storm vs. Liberty - Last Night
 

Did anyone see the game last night between the Storm and Liberty, and the last second no-call at the end???

I saw the play...I was okay with no call...at least from the angles provided. What was really more confusing was how they handled the replay on the OOB call 17 or so seconds before. After changing their call on the court, they retroactively took back a timeout that had been granted to a team. They had one of the officials mic'd up, and the explanation they gave didn't make a lot of sense to me. :confused:

The play will be towards the end of the clip starting at 1:26

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CfBSpVfvEXg" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="349" width="560"></iframe>

I know E. Brewton, the ref in the game, personally and I have that same question for him when he gets back in town. The way I think I understood it is the OOB call was incorrect and the timeout the one team asked for could not have been granted under the recorrected OOB situation. That is why they had that team ask for the timeout again. Or it could have been related to the officials looking at the monitor, and more time being taken. All in all I really don't know either.

As to the original situation, I agree with the no call. Hand on the ball by the defense blocking the shot, then marginal body contact = nothing.

Contact then hand on the ball = then another story.

Except a timeout could have been granted...the ball was dead regardless of whom the ball was awarded to. The was not a suspension of play which is kind of sounds like they were alluding to.

What I think they might of thought was, they should have reviewed the play anyway before they granted a timeout. In that case, a timeout would not be granted as it would be treated as a suspension of play. In the interest of "fairness" they decided to retroactively take back the timeout since they felt they should have reviewed the play first.

This type of play happened in the 2010 NBA Finals in game 3 Los Angeles Lakers vs. Boston Celtics...if I remember correctly, a timeout was granted, the officials went back and reviewed the play and overturned an OOB call on KG. If I also remember correctly, the timeout was not given back.

I think the only question on the play was the body contact. I agree the contact was marginal with everything else being clean. In reality, I think the shooter flailed her arms out, and fell to the ground when she realized the ball was being blocked in an attempt to try and draw the foul.

That makes two of us.

my "twocentsworth" on that play....there is NO foul....

the dunk and the blocked shot are the two most exciting plays in the game. why would we call a foul on marginal contact in either situation (or ANY situation, for that matter)?

The amount of excitement, or lack thereof, is not a factor in determining whether or not there was a foul.

With the benefit of being able to watch the play several times, I have ball contact first, then body contact and no foul. The shooter was also jumping forward and that probably made it look a lot worse than it was.

I can also say that in real time, on the court, it would be awfully tough to swallow the whistle on that play.

The official, however, was in a great position to see the play.

Hmmm, the C was clearly signalling something, before waving it off. The ball wasn't out of bounds yet when her hand went up.

I havent seen this particular play yet, but thats some good stuff to think about. Next level mindset!

I agree. Ball first on a block = nothing, unless severe contact by the body of the defender on the shooter

Do We Really Want to Go Down That Path Again ???
 

Here we go again.

What's your opinion Billy? Just curious.

I Guess That You Just Had To Be There ...
 

A few months ago, Forum members became involved in a great debate as to whether, or not, a foul should be called when a shot is cleanly blocked, and then contact occurs with the airborne shooter. Some were adamant that a foul should not be called because the contact, if not excessive, did not affect the shooter because the shot was already cleanly blocked. Others were just as adamant that officials should protect the airborne shooter at all costs. As one who only officiates high school games, I fall into the "always protect the airborne shooter" category, but I am open to other opinions from those that officiate college games in "Rome".

I see. I learned early on through a college mentor of mine that while an offensive players best move is a dunk, a defenders is a block. If the contact is after the block and it is clean then where can that shot go? Usually no where. So if contact occurs marginally afterwards then why penalize a clean block by the defense?

I do recognize the other side of the argument. Though I believe we can protect them too much.

My personal feeling is block before contact is going to be a no call unless the contact after the block has happened is excessive or unnecessary. Tough to disadvantage a shooter when his/her shot is over and on the way to the floor.

I understand the need to protect the airborne shooter, but I'm not sure what the are being protected from. If they are being protected from a slap on the wrist or a bump they could easily absorb maybe they should be in a different sandbox with less contact: tennis, chess, swimming . . .

General rule of thumb if it is contact i would accept as inadvertant and able to be handled on the subway or line at the grocery store I don't need to protect kids from it.

If you want to protect the shooter I get that, just make sure you are protecting them not rewarding them for getting airborne. I also think a lot of this probably has to do with the nature of the basketball games you officiate. If you do a lot of games with larger athletes, where blocks &/ dunks are a regular occurrence and kids are used to playing this way you probably see less calls here as kids manage. The tough ones come in games where you've got 1 or 2 players who can make these sorts of plays but the rest of players strength, body control, game in general cannot handle this sort of play.

My position has been shared many times here.
 

I got nothing on the block. ;)

Peace

It was certainly worth looking at but ultimately, neither do I.

What sent the shooter to the floor was probably just as much the block itself...the force through the ball....as it was body contact.

I don't have a foul on this call at any point. Ball has been blocked contact (imo) is not enough to send the player to the ground - force of block and sales job to get a foul did. The ball has been blocked, contact after that is not enough to disadvantage the the other player any further (particularly in this instance when the game is now over).

Pick A Prize From The Top Shelf ...
 

Bingo. I've never seen this situation described in this manner on the Forum before, but such a situation certainly could occur.

As Panther has said himself/herself, I wouldn't have a call at any point in the game on this play. The defender blocked the shot, the shot was not getting off on this play, and the contact was after the block. Fair game.

Not all contact is a foul, whatever you saw before the block in my opinion was not advantageous toward the. defense. So your saying to send the player to the line by calling the foul because of the score and time left?

You're saying that the fact that this is the road team taking the shot is important to the call that you would make in this circumstance? And this is something that you would make a point to be conscious of at the time?

I can't speak for him, but that is how I read it. Now, how many of us have never, ever officiated a blow out and called more fouls on the team winning by a large margin? If someone can say they have never done something like that, on any level, then I guess that official could have a problem with what is being said.

My Two NFHS Cents ...
 

Same here, if this was in my high school game, boys, or girls. The ball was certainly cleanly blocked up on top, but then the defender's follow-through practically takes the head off the shooter, followed by the defender's inertia carrying her into the shooter's body, causing the shooter to fall to the floor, all while the shooter was still airborne, and, by the book, still in the act of shooting. And, yes I know that the "shot" itself was not affected by any illegal contact since the ball had already been released when the illegal contact occurred. It's still a two shot in the act of shooting foul.

In high school games, in my little corner of Connecticut, this is a foul almost every time. I'm calling this foul at the beginning of a game, at the end of a game, in a blow out game, in a close game, in a high school varsity game, in a Catholic middle school game, in a boys game, in a girls game, with cordial coaches, with hostile coaches, on the road, or at home (whatever that means, as an official, I'm never at home?). And none of my colleagues, and only few coaches, would question my call.

If college, or professional, officials want to call this differently, I have no problem with their interpretation.

Sue Bird has what Belichick would diagnose as Bernie Kosar Disease.

You're saying cutting the losing team some slack in a blowout is the same thing as deciding whether to call a last second foul that could affect which team wins based on which team is home and which is the visitor?

Big of you.

And rare for this site. Quite a few folks on this site are never wrong. :rolleyes:

Where did you find that?

Ironically Felicia Grinter (the C official on this play) was one of my clinicians in Orlando, and actually mentioned to me that line of thinking that once the shot is blocked cleanly that contact on the follow through needs to be severe enough to cause true affect on the play.

In this case, the shot was capped and then, the flailing and so forth by Bird was to try and bait the call.

Good to see Felicia practice what she preaches!

Does the fact that it was ruled correct make it any less debatable?

You could debate how to call it at other levels. But it's obvious that the call in this game was made correctly.

Debate it all you want, but in the end it's a judgement call. We've had this discussion a million times about this exact play. And most reasonable officials agree that the play needs to be officiated the way the person who pays you for that specific game wants it to be officiated.

How is it any more obvious than it was before? It is a judgment call. The person who judged it to be correct is just another opinion.

Someone has to be the boss and have the final say. And I'm quite sure those WNBA officials have certain philosophies ingrained in them and when working WNBA games that's whose philosophies count.

Those same WNBA officials also work NCAA basketball and I'm quite sure if they work for a supervisor who wants that call made they will call a foul on that exact same play.

Maybe not just another opinion, but the only opinion that matters. Keep in mind none of these folks here opinion matters in this issue or call.

Peace

You make it sound as if it's just another person giving their opinion on the play...:rolleyes:

It is just another person giving an opinion on the play. It just so happens that person has authority on the matter, but it is still just one opinion, nothing more.

Here, that person's opinion means no more than the opinion of anyone else.

Eh...I tend to take a person in authority's opinion a lot more seriously and give it a lot more weight than just anyone's opinions. If I hear a ruling form Ronnie Nunn in the NBA or Carl Johnson in the NFL, I'll take his opinion on a play as fact. Because the matter of the fact is if your boss says something is, there is no real debate...if you want to work at the level for long.

Nothing more, really, nothing more???? :rolleyes:

You and I can disagree on this one and no one is going to get fired if they disagree with us or call it the way they think. If someone disagrees with the supervisor, they will just be here with us talking about the play and watching like you or I. Sorry, that is a big difference.

Keep believing that.

Peace

Some folks believe that a judgement call must be ruled the same in every single conference and every single level of play. :rolleyes:

I will say I agree with that premise. I call the game the exact same no matter what the level. It helps me with my consistency.

Peace

Like I said, we can continue debating how to call this at all other levels, but the debate over how it should have been called at this level is pretty much over.

And even that debate will go on without an end b/c it's a judgement call depending on the philosophy of officiating to which you adhere. You can call it a foul in your conference and be just as right me not calling it in mine.

Is this supervisor incapable of making a mistake? Even on a play which has no clear cut correct answer, but is strictly a judgment call?

Blind obedience?

I don't get what you're hung up on. :confused: One's supervisor is the only judgement that matters...even if you think he/her is mistaken. Seems simple enough to me.

Maybe it's just me, but when the people who sign my check (metaphorically speaking) tell me they want the job done a certain way, I try to comply. The alternative is more time at home.
Maybe that's just my stripes talking, though.

His hang up is like a lot of others that happen to read a rule in a rulebook and happen to read this site on a regular basis. They cannot distinguish between what they read and the real world application of that rule. It is that simple from my point of view.

Peace

My hang up is that the discussion went from "the contact was/wasn't sufficient to affect the play and justify a foul call" to "cuz Dad said so."

Somebody important once posted the interpretation that when B1 tips the ball into the backcourt and A1 catches it without allowing it to first hit the floor that it is a violation.

A lot of us still haven't accepted that one.

Mmm, you think a lot of this gives an indication of who would be "yeah but" officials?

That's a rules debate concerning the misapplication and misinterpretation of said rule.

This discussion is about judgement. You would think you'd be able to distinguish between the two.

Yep. And those are the guys sitting at home wondering why they cannot get to a certain level or they cannot work for certain people. Unfortunately there are too many of those people. Then they blame their lack of success on politics. ;)

Peace

Well if my dad was in charge of grading my call percentages, and said something is or isn't a foul, then his word is final...I mean you don't have to agree but you'll be getting your calls graded as incorrect.

For some reason, I feel like we're talking about a blarge...something that everyone seems to have no real problem with except you. :confused:

And that somebody doesn't sign any of our checks; metaphorically or otherwise.