Thoughts? (video)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

More background: Play #1 resulted in foul #5 on White #34.

How is this relevant?

[Camron Rust]

I think it is a weak foul on the first play. On top of that, you can't get both the foul and the shot. It isn't continuous motion to turn, get fouled, pull the ball down and square up before going up for the shot. If the C insists on calling that foul, they can't give the shot too.

On the 2nd play, protect the shooter. The defender hipchecked the shooter to the floor before the shooter came down.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think it is a weak foul on the first play. On top of that, you can't get both the foul and the shot. It isn't continuous motion to turn, get fouled, pull the ball down and square up before going up for the shot. If the C insists on calling that foul, they can't give the shot too.

The first play, the slot is clearly calling the contact that occurs on he shooter's left arm (for the defender, in the official's judgement, violating verticality). Now whether that is a foul or not is another question, but the contact that is whistled is definitely during the shot.

[JugglingReferee]

Travel in play 1. Also no foul in play 1. Foul in play 2. Gotta get a foul like that.

In my judgement, I'd say they went 0/3 in the video.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by APG

The first play, the slot is clearly calling the contact that occurs on he shooter's left arm (for the defender, in the official's judgement, violating verticality). Now whether that is a foul or not is another question, but the contact that is whistled is definitely during the shot.

That didn't even register as a possible foul to me.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by just another ref

How is this relevant?

Make it as relevant as you want or not relevant at all. I'm just providing background information.

[JetMetFan]

My $0.02 worth...

Play #1: The C assumed there was going to be contact so the called the first thing she saw.

Play #2: At a camp last year a pretty good official told me the following when I no-called a similar play...at this level when a player is airborne heading in one direction and then they change direction drastically, chances are they didn't do it on their own.

There's also an ant vs. elephant component to these two. C called an ant that really wasn't there on one end but then C and L - since he didn't pinch the paint - let the elephant go by at the other end.

[BillyMac]

1) Traveling. Easy peasey lemon squeezy.

2) Foul (Poor coaching, defender used wrong hand to block the ball, which resulted in "enough" contact on the airborne shooter to charge the foul).

Easy to call on videotape. I have no major problem with the calls made on the court in "real time". We all miss some, some more than others, but we all miss some.

[Raymond]

1) I have nothing, especially since the little contact that occurred came on the non-shooting arm.

2) Lead should have a secondary whistle on the play. C should have had a primary whistle but she took herself totally out of the play with here initial positioning. She was all worried about A1 when she was 30 feet from the basket but then when A1 drives to the basket the C is nowhere to be found.

[Raymond]

For those who say A1 travelled on the first play I say the travel was caused by the defender on the floor bumping into A1's legs.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

For those who say A1 traveled on the first play I say the travel was caused by the defender on the floor bumping into A1's legs.

I disagree, but I can see your point. If, indeed, you want to go that route, and I have no major problem with that, then make sure to not count the basket (travel before the shot, no continuation), and go with a common foul (Overtime? Maybe one and one, or double bonus?).

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

More background: Play #1 resulted in foul #5 on White #34.

Originally Posted by just another ref

How is this relevant?

I think this is relevant because this is a weak foul to give to someone for her fifth foul. It's a weak "+1" to begin with, but to send someone off in an overtime game? A foul is a foul is a foul, I know, but FWIW I think a more patient whistle and more game awareness could have been implemented here.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rooster

This is a weak foul to give to someone for her fifth foul ...

I fully understand the concept, of "When in Rome ...", but this idea of making sure that a player's fifth foul, especially a star player's fifth foul, is a "real' foul is just not part of my game. We have officials on my board, mostly veterans, trained under our former, retired, interpreter, who have this same philosophy, and I have no problem with such a philosophy, but this is never a part of my game. I do try to keep track of team fouls to prepare for the one and one, and double bonus, but I never try to keep track of individual fouls. If it's illegal contact, I charge the foul, if it's incidental contact, then I pass on the call, and I don't care if you're Joe Blow, or Wilt Chamberlain. They're too many cell phones, and digital cameras, out there now compared to thirty years ago, and I don't want to be put in a situation where I have to explain a "pass" because it was the star player.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I fully understand the concept, of "When in Rome ...", but this idea of making sure that a player's fifth foul, especially a star player's fifth foul, is a "real' foul is just not part of my game. We have officials on my board, mostly veterans, trained under our former, retired, interpreter, who have this same philosophy, and I have no problem with such a philosophy, but this is never a part of my game. I do try to keep track of team fouls to prepare for the one and one, and double bonus, but I never try to keep track of individual fouls. If it's illegal contact, I charge the foul, if it's incidental contact, then I pass on the call, and I don't care if you're Joe Blow, or Wilt Chamberlain. They're too many cell phones, and digital cameras, out there now compared to thirty years ago, and I don't want to be put in a situation where I have to explain a "pass" because it was the star player.

I don't know whether or not this player was a star player, and frankly don't care if she was. I'm with you on the idea of Joe Blow and Wilt. My point is simply that this was a weak foul to be the fifth, irrespective of who it was. If this was the beginning of the game and this call was made as part of GM and an attempt to "clean it up," then I'm all for it. There was contact, sure. But clearly the offensive player played through it and white paid a heavy price.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rooster

... this was a weak foul to be the fifth ...

Rooster: What you guys do in your little part of the chicken coop is fine with me. I never have a mental list of the players that have four fouls. I'm in the majority with most of the guys, but not all of the guys, on my local board on this. If you mean that you know that this player has four and it would be a shame to call this weak foul as his fifth, then we're going to have to disagree. I make my decisions based on illegal contact, and incidental contact, not on weak versus strong, or three versus four fouls.

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.