WNBA: Jacket Removal and Toss

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

Nope. Im saying that a whistle looks justified with the benefit of slow mo and replay. Camera had a beautiful angle. The coach certainly had a case against the no-call so I'd cut her some slack on the response.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP

I don't think that warrants a second technical. Official absolutely blew the call in my opinion.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Blew what call? The one where the defender put her hand on top of the ball and caused a turnover?

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.

[Maineac]

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....

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by Rich

... Before anyone calls anyone an idiot again.....

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I am also charging a foul on this play.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I am also charging a foul on this play.

How much would you charge for this foul?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

How much would you charge for this foul?

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

...

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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. Yeah. That's better.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

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