Sky vs. Mystics - Last Second Call Thoughts

[JRutledge]

I do not see any foul based on the angles we saw on the video. It looked to me like the officials anticipated a call than seeing the entire play. I at first thought there would have to have been a foul call on #22 that was trailing the play, but on the end line angle that player did not appear to even touch the shooter. The block looked clean for the most part. Without talking to the official it is a guess, but there certainly was not video evidence to say they got that call right.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

but there certainly was not video evidence to say they got that call right.

Seems to me the opposite of how we should approach thus.

[tref]

Tough play, tough call... big ba11s!

If you take this play frame by frame, once the throw-in is complete the new T is out of this play. No way he can catch up to the shooter after the outlet pass for the last second shot! I dont know if there was a timeout prior to that throw-in, but you would think they discussed this situation & how it would be handled at some point.

The live camera angle seems to be the slots view but not at court level (big difference). That being said, I dont see a foul here.
I did see a swipe from the trailing defender followed by a "get that ish outta here" then the shooters body twists & falls. The player closest to the slot says something to him (after the shooter fell) as he made the call...

Obviously, anybody can break this film down & say what they would've done or how this should be handled. Live game its a tough play to officiate.

What can be said though, is, whether he got the call correct or not he needed to be stronger on is post-whistle actions!!! He just walked across the court as if this was a typical call in the 1st 5 minutes of the game. That's a GAMER man! Time to shine! His body language suggest to me that he didn't buy his own act...

[twocentsworth]

per the box score...the foul was charged to #22 (the trailing defender) on this play....

even though I am a Sky fan, and I am glad they won....THERE WAS NO FOUL on this play. Granted, the best view was from the baseline camera and the only official who could have made this call was the slot/C - it was a bad call. No contact occurred that warranted a foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

per the box score...the foul was charged to #22 (the trailing defender) on this play....

even though I am a Sky fan, and I am glad they won....THERE WAS NO FOUL on this play. Granted, the best view was from the baseline camera and the only official who could have made this call was the slot/C - it was a bad call. No contact occurred that warranted a foul.

Actually that is what I thought when I saw the play that he had to call the foul on #22 because it looked like the only legitimate contact came from that player. But when you see the end line angle, then it is clear there was no contact at all from that player.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But when you see the end line angle, then it is clear there was no contact at all from that player.

Peace

I don't know that it is that clear.

At the moment where there may or may not be contact, the other defender is directly in the line of sight with respect to the camera....completely blocking any view from the endline camera. I can't say there was contact, but I sure can't agree that it was clear there wasn't contact either.

Tough situation.

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by tref

Tough play, tough call... big ba11s!

He just walked across the court as if this was a typical call in the 1st 5 minutes of the game. That's a GAMER man! Time to shine! His body language suggest to me that he didn't buy his own act...

It did look like he wanted that one back. btdt

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by BLydic

It did look like he wanted that one back. btdt

No i don't think he did. Cause from my understanding everyone in the locker room thought it was a foul.

[twocentsworth]

if multiple people (like the ones who've participated in this discussion) look at slow-motion video replay (from different angles) and cannot come to a consensus as to if there was or was not contact.....I think we have the answer to whether the foul should have been called or not.....

NOT.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

if multiple people (like the ones who've participated in this discussion) look at slow-motion video replay (from different angles) and cannot come to a consensus as to if there was or was not contact.....I think we have the answer to whether the foul should have been called or not.....

NOT.

I do not think anyone is debating contact. Contact alone does not mean a foul should be called (or 4-27 in the NF rulebook would not be there either). What is at play is if that fits the definition of a foul?

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

if multiple people (like the ones who've participated in this discussion) look at slow-motion video replay (from different angles) and cannot come to a consensus as to if there was or was not contact.....I think we have the answer to whether the foul should have been called or not.....

NOT.

No, it only means the video angles available are insufficient to draw a conclusion either way. That says nothing about whether there was or wasn't contact or whether one of the officials did or did not have a better view that was conclusive.