Sky vs. Mystics - Last Second Call Thoughts
 

WNBA.com: WNBA Video Player

What is everyone's thoughts on the foul call with about 1 second left in the game. It is around the 1:32 mark on the highlight video linked above.

I haven't watched the video yet, but if it would be a foul in the first minute of the game is should darn well be a foul in the last minute of the game.

MTD, Sr.

I have watched the video. It is difficult to tell if there was contact. But, lets assume that there was contact, then the official made the correct call. This would have been a foul in the first minute of the game and should be a foul in the last minute of the game. If I were the WNBA Commissioner I would fine the losing coach for her conduct toward the coach after the game. Coaches should always pay a price for taking a cheap shot at the officials for conduct on the court immediately after the game. The game official did a great job of ignoring her as he left the court.

MTD, Sr.

I agree there are no good angles from the camera's. I was surprised, as I watched the game live, that the call was made from C's position across the court. I would think that the better angle from where contact supposedly happened on the left shoulder would come from in front of the play. It looked as if the C was right in line with the offensive player and was blocked out, therefore having to react to the body language of the shooter for the foul call. Maybe the Trail should have been closer to the play? It just seemed a reach from the C's position for this kind of contact. But all of this is coming from poor camera angles.

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

Horrible positioning by the Lead official. There was exactly zero Team A players in her primary. Having a feel for the game means understanding where the last-second attack will come from, and officiating that area rather that officiating the void that she was looking at. Had she started up the strong side sideline, she would have been in perfect situation to sell any call that needed to be made or not made.

I could see the call coming from the Lead, as she could see the initial contact if it was there. On this type of contact coming from behind, the Center IMO is not in position to make the call. At first I though the Trail should have made the call but now looking back that would be hard, unless he was right on it on the sideline.

Didn't this foul occur in the C's primary? And exactly how is the lead or trail supposed to see contact (if there really was any) from behind? No way! The C would have the best look through and should be in the best position to make the call.

I agree that this is the C's primary. I cannot tell from the clip if their was a foul or not. Maybe Ben can chime in if he finds out how the call was graded.

The Lead could stay back and see the situation unfold from start to finish and have a deep look. Going by PCA's it wouldnt be the Lead's, but view wise it wasnt a bad look as one of the replays had a view from approximately the Leads position. The C from his angle was looking at the side of the player when the "contact" was coming from back to front. If he was deeper down toward the baseline I think the look would have been better as you could see the "swipe and contact" starting and finish. But I have confidence he had some sort of look if he made the call.

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

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

It did look like he wanted that one back. btdt :D

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

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

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.

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.