Video request: SMU v USF 13:06 (Clip Added)

[Rooster]

Little help here? Not trying to pile on our NFO but I continued watching this game and I'm curious about the foul on W2 at 13:06. Best I can see is "protecting the airborne shooter." Whadda ya think?

[Raymond]

Viewed it on the ESPN web feed. I have a no-call personally--"play-on".

I know if I were in camp, and made that call, I would get the dreaded "game interrupter" speech from an observer.

[APG]

[zm1283]

I wouldn't call that a foul in a high school girls game.

[BryanV21]

I've got nothing.

[Camron Rust]

Was there something to see in that video?

[Raymond]

Closest thing I see to a foul is R34.

[JRutledge]

I agree with BNR. The defender was pushed out of the way if anything and I am certainly not calling a foul on him for being pushed.

I have a no-call on this either way.

Peace

[APG]

I thinking the official's thinking in the play was that the defender did not have a legal position since he was in the RA, and got caught up in that fact. The fact that the secondary defender was in the area does not mean we can't judge contact to be incidental, which I think the lead would rather have done after watching it again.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by APG

I thinking the official's thinking in the play was that the defender did not have a legal position since he was in the RA, and got caught up in that fact. The fact that the secondary defender was in the area does not mean we can't judge contact to be incidental, which I think the lead would rather have done after watching it again.

Is there something in the video that makes you think he's calling a block? I think the official's thinking was that there was contact on the shooting arm. (He'd be wrong on that.) The shooter's arm moves away as the defender swings toward it so it seems like he may have thought that the defender hit the arm.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by youngump

Is there something in the video that makes you think he's calling a block? I think the official's thinking was that there was contact on the shooting arm. (He'd be wrong on that.) The shooter's arm moves away as the defender swings toward it so it seems like he may have thought that the defender hit the arm.

Well if that is what he thought, then that was a very bad judgment. The ball was gone and the shooter was almost on the floor. The contact did not even put the shooter at any disadvantage. I think the official saw contact and called it because he was trying to protect the shooter. But all contact with a shooter is not illegal and certainly not a guy that did not fall or the contact was minimal at best. And if he saw how he got there, I am sure the official was not happy with the call if he watched the tape. Then again, we have all been there and blown our whistle too soon.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by youngump

Is there something in the video that makes you think he's calling a block? I think the official's thinking was that there was contact on the shooting arm. (He'd be wrong on that.) The shooter's arm moves away as the defender swings toward it so it seems like he may have thought that the defender hit the arm.

That is also a possibility...one I did not think of.

[rockyroad]

Wish we could see what he reported to the table. Hit? Block? Push? Maybe he judged that the defender did not give the shooter the opportunity to land cleanly/safely and so was calling a block or a push??? Would love to hear his reasoning behind putting a whistle on that play.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Closest thing I see to a foul is R34.

Closest thing I see to a foul is on the shooter for screaming and looking at the guy he scored on.