I was thinking the same thing, but I think there's a significant difference. Most players think that being touched = being fouled, but they have to "sell" that foul to get us to call it. IOW, they aren't faking something they think didn't happen, they're trying to show us something that did happen.

Normally, we consider it "faking" when there's no contact at all.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/LPpNEGZol18" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hmmm after seeing APGs video, I'm almost inclined to go with this ^.

Yup.

The L was so wide I don't think he had the best look possible at this.

APG, thanks for getting the video up. I still can't see anything worthy of a PC foul. Parker's arm found the defender's arm, and then the defender threw his arms up and his head back. To me, it doesn't add up to a PC foul.

Travel :)

Then no call. But I can see why the Lead called the PC...from his angle, looks like offensive player lead with elbow.

I saw the play earlier and was okay with the call, but watching the whole thing from different angles and with slow motion, a no call would have been okay with me, but then you'd have to call the travel, and I'm the only one that would do that.

I would have went with a travel.

I must agree with BNR & jar.

PS (BNR) - Are you back to work yet? Next visit to the RVA = ??

The guys doing these games are all excellent officials. Maybe some of the college guys can comment on this better. It seems like officials are choosing to pass on this call more often than them just missing it.

1. Players athletic ability is such that it is hard to be 100% sure it was a travel.

2. Officiating this level of play it is more acceptable to miss a travel, than a foul.

1. It was a travel, IMO, even before the contact.

2. I would say that is accurate.