Michigan-Louisville shooting foul clip (Hancock/Burke 1st half)

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Then why are you guessing on this one?

I'm not guessing. Rather, I'm confirming the camera angle does not show any contact. haha!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

Wait a minute, now. I didn't say there wasn't any contact.

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

I'm not guessing. Rather, I'm confirming the camera angle does not show any contact. haha!

So which is it?

A camera angle not showing contact is hardly the same as a camera angle showing there was no contact. There is no evidence the official got this call wrong. In fact, there are multiple points that can be seen in the video to support the call.

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

So which is it?

You've posted each quote outside of their context, but in the end, I suppose my answer to your question is "both".

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A camera angle not showing contact is hardly the same as a camera angle showing there was no contact. There is no evidence the official got this call wrong. In fact, there are multiple points that can be seen in the video to support the call.

I'm ok with you using results driven officiating (or whatever it's called these days). But, I'm not comfortable with it. If I can't explain (see) how a player's shot was affected, or how a player became displaced, etc etc...I'm not calling it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

You've posted each quote outside of their context, but in the end, I suppose my answer to your question is "both".



I'm ok with you using results driven officiating (or whatever it's called these days). But, I'm not comfortable with it. If I can't explain (see) how a player's shot was affected, or how a player became displaced, etc etc...I'm not calling it.

I think Camron's point is that absent evidence that says the officials were wrong (you've said it was inconclusive), he's going to defer to the officials on the court. That's not the same things as what you here refer to as "results driven officiating." I assume by that you mean something along the lines of calling a foul because you see a player holding his eye, so you assume he was poked by the defender. That's not what Camron is suggesting.

It's possible the official saw something you can't see on camera, and the video evidence (according to Camron) supports it even if it doesn't confirm it.

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think Camron's point is that absent evidence that says the officials were wrong (you've said it was inconclusive), 1: he's going to defer to the officials on the court. That's not the same things as what you here refer to as "results driven officiating." 2: I assume by that you mean something along the lines of calling a foul because you see a player holding his eye, so you assume he was poked by the defender. That's not what Camron is suggesting.It's possible the official saw something you can't see on camera, and the video evidence (according to Camron) supports it even if it doesn't confirm it.

1 I'm more than good with that.

2 That's what I thought CR was saying.

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

You've posted each quote outside of their context, but in the end, I suppose my answer to your question is "both".

I'm ok with you using results driven officiating (or whatever it's called these days). But, I'm not comfortable with it. If I can't explain (see) how a player's shot was affected, or how a player became displaced, etc etc...I'm not calling it.

Contact by the defense on the left side of the torso and left arm. This contact did not allow the normal shooting motion (two hands in contact with the ball on a jump shot) to take place. In addition the contact caused a shooter (who had hardly missed a 3 pt attempt for 2 weeks) to shoot the ball behind the backboard.

Seems easy to explain, although for me, I typically don't give lengthy explanations. Me: Shooter got hit during shot.