Concentration on Opening Jump (Video)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I agree but in this case G1 prevented R1 from having any opportunity to tap the ball, and used leverage from the foul to get a better opportunity himself. So I think a foul call would be appropriate here.

It took multiple viewings for many of us to even notice the foul. This would fall into the category of "not obvious enough to call" for me.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It took multiple viewings for many of us to even notice the foul.

Part of this is the camera motion. It zooms in too tight and then moves upward as the ball goes up, drawing your attention away from the contact.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Altor

Part of this is the camera motion. It zooms in too tight and then moves upward as the ball goes up, drawing your attention away from the contact.

Sort of like an official's eyes during a jump ball.

The tosser is looking up, and looking to avoid flying elbows. The U1 looking through Red 12. The U2 is observing the non-jumpers.

Gold 34's hold was subtle and quick; he released it almost immediately, even in slow motion.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It took multiple viewings for many of us to even notice the foul. This would fall into the category of "not obvious enough to call" for me.

Cross board lurker here: but since when is obviousness a factor in determining if something is a foul. This is illegal contact that gave a significant advantage so I'd imagine it should be called even if only you could see it?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by youngump

Cross board lurker here: but since when is obviousness a factor in determining if something is a foul. This is illegal contact that gave a significant advantage so I'd imagine it should be called even if only you could see it?

I have college supervisors who would have an email sitting on my smartphone before halftime if I called this particular play a foul to start the game.

So yes, in this case, obviousness would definitely come into play. Right or wrong, it is reality.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by youngump

Cross board lurker here: but since when is obviousness a factor in determining if something is a foul. This is illegal contact that gave a significant advantage so I'd imagine it should be called even if only you could see it?

"Not obvious" as in "hard to see" or "hard to see clearly enough to call". Officials tend not to make calls that they aren't 100% sure about.

And if you are saying you saw it clearly enough upon the first viewing, and at real speed, then I'd have to question your honesty.

[mutantducky]

interesting videos. I saw both fouls although the Knicks one is clearer. Very rare call indeed.

[Raymond]

The one from the Knicks/Nuggets falls into the "obvious" category, IMHO.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The one from the Knicks/Nuggets falls into the "obvious" category, IMHO.

Yeah, that one was obvious.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

"Not obvious" as in "hard to see" or "hard to see clearly enough to call". Officials tend not to make calls that they aren't 100% sure about.

And if you are saying you saw it clearly enough upon the first viewing, and at real speed, then I'd have to question your honesty.

I'm pretty certain I'm a good enough U1/U2 to see that if the opposing HC had talked to us about it pregame (which reportedly happened in the Iowa-Wisconsin game), or if we'd pregamed about it because our supervisor had sent something out on this type of play - team-specific or not. And in those cases, I'm seeing it and calling it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

I'm pretty certain I'm a good enough U1/U2 to see that if the opposing HC had talked to us about it pregame (which reportedly happened in the Iowa-Wisconsin game), or if we'd pregamed about it because our supervisor had sent something out on this type of play - team-specific or not. And in those cases, I'm seeing it and calling it.

That's a whole nother story. In that case the crew needs to be on the lookout.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

And if you are saying you saw it clearly enough upon the first viewing, and at real speed, then I'd have to question your honesty.

Just because you happened to see the foul on the first viewing on a video that you know a possible foul occurs on the jump should not mean that a conclusion be drawn that you are dishonest. Bad news said something about leaving it alone if not obvious, but if I saw that with a clear angle, I would have a whistle (albeit late after my 'did I just really see that?' processing delay )

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Just because you happened to see the foul on the first viewing on a video that you know a possible foul occurs on the jump should not mean that a conclusion be drawn that you are dishonest. Bad news said something about leaving it alone if not obvious, but if I saw that with a clear angle, I would have a whistle (albeit late after my 'did I just really see that?' processing delay )

Maybe that sentence was unnecessary.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

"Not obvious" as in "hard to see" or "hard to see clearly enough to call". Officials tend not to make calls that they aren't 100% sure about.

And if you are saying you saw it clearly enough upon the first viewing, and at real speed, then I'd have to question your honesty.

I'd question the honesty of anyone who doesn't call a foul they do see because they think others might not be able to see it.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Unless it is blantantly obvious, leaving that alone.

I agree with everything BNR wrote in this thread.