It's not justified. The post above explains why it wasn't a foul.

On another note, I've cleaned up the thread. Before anyone calls anyone an idiot again, please note that we'll delete those types of posts. They don't do anything for this board.

The call was missed. This isn't even close.

The defender may have touched the ball at the beginning but when the shooter tried to take the ball up, the only contact from the defender was across the shooter's forearm and not on the ball at all any more. The defender didn't stop the movement of the ball, they stopped the movement of the arm.

If the hand had also remained on the ball AND the arm while the shooter was going up, I could agree with no foul, but the defender was only holding down the arm.

Quote:

Dunn said she thought Reeve should have been ejected because the wildest part of the tantrum came after the technical. "I guess the thing that concerns me is that after she got her first technical, then she proceeded to take her jacket off, throw her jacket," Dunn said. "In my opinion, that should have been reason for a second technical and removal, and they (the officials) did not do that, and of course, she was able to incite the crowd. "There's no doubt in my mind that her behavior after the first technical warranted ejection, and I was very disappointed that the officials allowed her to in some ways, you know, just kind of a lack of respect for the game and lack of respect for them. I was disappointed in the whole affair."

"Unless, of course, it was I who did this. In that case this wouldn't have been a problem and I would see this as just getting a "T" to fire up my team," said the other coach....

:confused:

This is exactly how I view it and based on that, I'm giving the coach a little leeway. She absolutely should be rung up based on her initial response, but I'd be hesitant to ring up a second T and toss her. IMHO, she had a valid gripe initially.

The Wrist Is Part Of The Ball ??? In Who's World ???
 

I am also charging a foul on this play.

How much would you charge for this foul?

Lets' Bring Two Threads Together ...
 

Not sure, haven't checked the 2012-13 price list. But I do know that there would be a 7% assignment fee.

So let me get this straight. You are going to call a foul on a defender that clearly contacted the ball first or mostly the ball, but had some contact with an arm at some point in the process of the play?

Peace

Hyperbole Is The Word Of The Day On My Word Of The Day Calendar ...
 

Some? She almost tore her arm out of it's socket. Wait? Almost? No. She actually did tear her arm out of it's socket, and then waved the detatched arm around to show the crowd. Yeah. That's better.

Yes. Contacting the ball first doesn't grant the right to the defender to hold down the arm of the shooter (actually pull the shooters arm off the ball) after contacting the ball. She didn't just have "some contact" on the arm. That is the primary contact, not the earlier ball contact.

If the initial ball contact had knocked the ball free, then the arm contact would be incidental, but it didn't. Since the shooter maintained control of the ball after the ball contact and was able to start a shot that was only stopped due to the arm contact, it can't be anything but a foul.

The No-call was absolutely correct. I wouldn't even think twice about it, neither would any of the supervisors I work for.

So, your supervisors like to allow the defender to pull the shooter's hand off the ball by hold onto their arm? Really?

If that is the case, why did the player not fall? That is some kind of contact to stay on your feet. Again the rules give the defender the same right to the ball. I see more contact on held ball situations than that play.

Peace

Not only that, as a state clinician I would love to praise an official that did not call that a foul.

To call that is at best a high school call. Any contact, call the foul no matter how the contact took place. ;)

Peace