Sky vs. Mystics - Last Second Call Thoughts

[btaylor64]

I'm actually astonished no one thinks this was a fou or maybe I shouldn't say foul, but at least that she got hit. She gets her left hand knocked away from the ball causing her to have to throw it one handed, but to say ZERO contact occurred on her arm is baffling.

[APG]

I usually don't put much stock into what announcers say, but during the telecast, the home team announcers thought it was a foul as they heard the slap from where they were seated. Take that for what it's worth.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I'm actually astonished no one thinks this was a fou or maybe I shouldn't say foul, but at least that she got hit. She gets her left hand knocked away from the ball causing her to have to throw it one handed, but to say ZERO contact occurred on her arm is baffling.

All I can say is it looked like that may have happened given the reaction of the shooter after the supposed contact. However, the moment of possible contact was obscured from the view of the camera by the other defender. The video was inconclusive to me.

The side view provided no better conclusion. It wasn't blocked but was so far away and it could have easily been a swipe and a miss.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

All I can say is it looked like that may have happened given the reaction of the shooter after the supposed contact. However, the moment of possible contact was obscured from the view of the camera by the other defender. The video was inconclusive to me.

The side view provided no better conclusion. It wasn't blocked but was so far away and it could have easily been a swipe and a miss.

Of course the reaction of the shooter is going to be weird. The shooter is trying to throw up a desperation shot with seconds left on the clock. And the reaction to me looked like it was because she had her shot clearly blocked not because of some other obvious contact. I need more than a reaction to call a foul, I need to see some obvious contact and from his angle I am not sure how he would see that. The arm that #22 could have hit was the none shooting arm and that contact would really have to be there for me to simply call a foul. I need a little more than what he saw. And the Lead would have been a better person based on the angle.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Of course the reaction of the shooter is going to be weird. The shooter is trying to throw up a desperation shot with seconds left on the clock. And the reaction to me looked like it was because she had her shot clearly blocked not because of some other obvious contact.

The reaction I was talking about was the physical reaction that was before the shot was blocked...not the post shot result.

[QUOTE=JRutledge;782942
I need more than a reaction to call a foul, I need to see some obvious contact and from his angle I am not sure how he would see that. The arm that #22 could have hit was the none shooting arm and that contact would really have to be there for me to simply call a foul. I need a little more than what he saw. And the Lead would have been a better person based on the angle.

Peace[/QUOTE]

Even hitting the non-shooting arm with it still in contact with the ball (and even if it wasn't) before the release on a long range shot is certainly enough to affect the shot and call a foul. However, as I previously said, I can't say that it hit or not from what we have in the video....the lead's angle would have been different but we only have the camera angle to discuss.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The reaction I was talking about was the physical reaction that was before the shot was blocked...not the post shot result.

Even hitting the non-shooting arm with it still in contact with the ball (and even if it wasn't) before the release on a long range shot is certainly enough to affect the shot and call a foul. However, as I previously said, I can't say that it hit or not from what we have in the video....the lead's angle would have been different but we only have the camera angle to discuss.

I am not saying some contact would not affect the player. But the shooter was lunging and it appeared they were throwing the ball at the goal and nothing appeared to be holding back the other arm from moving. Again, total judgement call, but I do not see the contact that suggested that reaction alone.

Peace

[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.

[Pantherdreams]

I would like to think that with a patient whistle we should be able to be certain on most foul calls that contact disadvantaged someone before it is called.

In this situation nothing I can see on the video would indicate anything nearly conclusive enough to call the foul. I would say though that neither angle is a close or from the position of the official who called the foul. The official may have seen something more conclusive then I am able to from the angles provided.