Quote:
Peace |
Peppermint Twist ...
Regarding the "Consistency" video, I would definitely have a problem with this crew is the opposite had happened, if the first play was called a foul, and if the second play was passed on. Now that's inconsistency, and that's not an example of, what we would call, "mirroring". I wouldn't throw them under the bus, but I would make sure to broach the subject at some point after the game.
|
The call on one end has nothing to do with the call on the other end.
period |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
But He's Our Star Player ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Some Common Ground ...
Quote:
On the other hand, if you mean that it would be a shame for a player, star, or otherwise, to foul out on a weak foul, with no prior knowledge of foul trouble by the official, then we can agree, but again, it not a matter of weak versus strong to me, it's a matter of illegal contact versus incidental contact. |
Quote:
|
Monday's Attempt At Humor ...
Quote:
|
Here's the deal. Explain to me how I'm wrong. Put the contact in four categories:
1. Nothing 2. Marginal contact, no advantage 3. Marginal contact, but advantage gained 4. Obvious foul If you start calling this play based on what was called on the last play, sooner or later you will put a 3 in the 2 column or vice versa. (probably sooner) This is wrong any way you look at it. You can have 3 clean blocks in a row on one end and 3 fouls in a row on the other. It happens. Just call the game. |
This is going to be area and maybe level dependent...but calls aren't judged in vacuum or in isolation. Close plays with marginal contact, are judged against the backdrop of what has or hasn't been called in the game.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
There is no "similar call". Even though the plays may be an inch apart, they may still fall on opposite sides of the fence. The last call/no call has zero bearing on the play at hand. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:03pm. |