If he turns away too much, or bails out too far, actually it is. I agree with those who have a no call here. Hard to blame the kid for bailing, though. A lot of things could have happened. Defender might have taken a knee to the face, or the offensive player might have been flipped on his head.

Worst thing that can happen here, in my opinion, is that the defender does recoil from the contact, creating only a glancing blow rather than a direct hit.
Offensive player hits the deck, defender is called for the block, because he didn't take it in the chest/fall down. :rolleyes:

+1 well put

Tough one for me, based on shooter almost clearing defender, there's not much there, if he hadn't elevated as much easy charge. IMHO defender didn't bail.

Stolen! "I don't have thatcontact causing thatresult."

I'm not really fond of the C in this video. He walked up the court and then didn't step down on a drive that he was responsible for. Even if there was a foul to call here, he just didn't look ready to officiate that play.

Great observation.

Exactly. He doesn't get a call just because he was once standing in the spot. He still has to take contact to draw a foul. A leg brushing and arm from a bailing defender is not a foul.

The biggest problem I have is the Lead is blowing one of those Sonic whistles. Those things should be banned! Sounds like fingernails on chalkboards to me.......

Good no call on the dunk. As stated before, that contact did not cause that result. And I don't think the RSA was put into the NBA and NCAA b/c of no calls. I think it was put there because they don't want players standing under the basket to draw charges from players who are attacking the rim.

Very quick and undeserved ejection IMO. The kid did not stare down or taunt the opponent. He did kind of pose and maybe he said something but I seriously doubt it was loud enough for anyone other than the ref to hear.

In that situation I would like to see the official tell the kid not to do that before hitting him with two quick Ts and tossing him.

You had a large group of officials who, outside of the rules, decided that it was not defense to put your body in the path a shooter needed to go through in order to make the desired shot and they would just not call a charge in that area no matter what. They would gesture to the players to get up rather than call a foul. They would no-call anything in that area that was not a block. So, defenders would get in there hoping to stop the path to the shot but the officials wouldn't call it by the rules....and collision after collision was the result.

Plus they (the NBA) really wanted to capitalize on the entertainment value brought by dunks, so they flipped the rules to make it only legal for a secondary defender to take a position in a players path if it was not too close to the basket.

Calling the plays as charges would have also stopped the collisions just as well as calling the plays blocks. No matter who it is, when you penalize the player who caused the contact, they eventually stop the action causing the contact.

But, again, the NBA tunes their rules based on revenue and dunks make more than defense.

Note that there were 2 T's, not one. The first was called on the taunt/pose and perhaps words said to the officials. The 2nd was called after the salute. Neither alone was enough for a flagrant...but he did two things that could and did draw T's.

Only primary defenders can take a charge in the RA if the play originates outside the lower defensive box (save for something overt from the offensive player).

The NBA AND NCAA did not "flip" the rules. They created the RA because they didnt want secondary defenders trying to draw charges under the basket. You can say it was partly to capitalize on entertainment value brought by dunks and that's likely true. But that does not change my opinion that it's a good rule nor does anything else you typed. And I disagree that calling charges on guys who are already at the rim is a good thing or would have had the desired affect of stopping the collisions as you stated.

Secondly, I'm well aware that there were two Ts for the two separate actions. Again, does not change my opinion that it was a quick and undeserved ejection and still think the official would have done better to talk to the player instead of hitting him with two quick Ts. If he says something to him after the stare then I doubt he does the salute. If so then an easy T at that point.

But personally, I'm not ejecting a kid for those actions I saw on tape. I'm talking to him telling him to play basketball and knock off the BS. After that he's fair game. Of course, it's possible they had already said something to him but I thought I saw it mentioned that this was the first few minutes of the game. But again based on what I know and saw on tape then I think it was a VERY quick and undeserving ejection.

I agree...
 

...with being able to turn away, or protect oneself from the contact, but I saw a flop, and every flop I've ever seen had some contact involved. And a "no-call" here is hardly an easy way out; not making some call is likely to be more controversial than making some kind of call. The thing that I've seen happen in many cases, and I think is more egregious, is the defender will maintain LGP, but back up, and that gets called a block.

In this case, we see it differently.

I don't want to speculate...
 

...why those officials were not willing to call a charge other than they were poor at reffing the defense, and built a rationale to support their deficiency. There are also officials who decide they won't call 3-seconds or lane violations, and they're easier to judge than some bang-bang contact plays.

That is basically what I said.