The endline camera is valuable but I don't think we need it on these plays. The Davis/Adams video had plays that were much closer IMO than the ones here. And I think video is a great tool for all of us and I try to use it for my own evaluation whenever possible. 99% of my games have no endline camera view yet I think I'm still able to grade accuracy fairly well.

I'm not seeing the flopping that some others are seeing. Play #2 was a flop and correctly no-called. On play #3 there may be a little embellishment by the defender but there is significant contact to the defender's upper body and not what I would consider a flop, or really even close to a flop.

Not sure which play you are talking about here. I'm guessing #2 or #5. #2 was a no call that was clearly a block IMO as the defender never had LGP and moved toward and into the path of the airborne shooter.

#5 I think Adam hit it on the head in that the defender was legal and maintained it even with the adjustment. And disagree that it's tough to tell with the angle we have here.

Agree again. I don't see that as a flop, let alone enough of one where I would make up a rule and call a block. ;)

Nope...don't worry about the timing of the whistles/commentary. I just noticed the audio & video are out of sync (I tend to watch these with the sound down). My apologies that I didn't pick up on that as I was creating the clips otherwise I would've just muted all the sound.

To that point, here's something else I just noticed. On plays 1, 3 and 6 - the plays where some of us feel the defender flopped/embellished - it's the same defender all three times: Blue #11. I don't remember off the top of my head whether he was involved in any similar plays earlier in the game but I'd like to think my awareness would've increased on block/charge situations where he was involved.

I had games like that this season where one kid tended to faint dead away when someone got near him/her and it always triggered a discussion with my partner(s) and, sometimes, the player and his/her HC.

have to be a subscriber to read :(

hmm -- i'm not a subscriber and I read it.

As did I.

I got the same error message. Wonder if it's cause I read some other articles there last week.

I can see all of those except the #4.

#4 is a travel anyway you cut it. He moved both feet after he clearly caught the ball. It might be missed in many games, but that doesn't make it not a travel.

#1-3 and #6 are all flops or exaggerations.

In #6, you can, if you slow it down more or pause it at the right time, actually see the defender's entire torso still 100% vertical after the shooter's torso passed by it before the defender even moves. The shooter didn't go through him.

I think the audio was off. I had several of the plays where I heard the whistle well before the contact but the visible signals from the officials were after.

Yeah, Jetmetfan mentioned it another thread. Let's get a new AV guy:D

You can sign up for a free Digital membership. That's how I read it.

Hey...make it a 3-man crew with me and APG and increase the fee :D

That's what I was seeing on #3 and, more so, #6. Not that he has to get RTFO but Blue #11 doesn't move backwards on contact in either of those plays. He actually drops straight down on the spot. The only play where Blue #11 actually moves backwards on "contact" is the flop in #1.

#4 - At first glance I did not see the travel, but ok, I think it is a little too close to call a full speed. Give me an ICNC.

I noticed that too. Thought it could have been an editing glitch or something. Since there was not a double whistle -- it went "whistle", "contact", "PC signal" -- I think it was the lead that blew the whistle. If the trail had something, we would have heard a second whistle from the lead. Also, the baseline view (starting at 2:04) has the train in the background during the drive and there appears to be no call from that offial.

Is it possible that the lead had a quick whistle/touch foul on the drive, but after seeing the collision, went with the more obvious contact?