What say you on this dunk? (Video)

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Probably because we were talking about "bodies" plural, not "a body" singular. Do you not remember what happened in the video?

Just because the offensive player made a spectacular leap into the air to attempt a successful dunk, he must do it in a legal manner.

The video shows the offensive player's knee striking the defender in the front of his left shoulder and displaces the defender. Did the defender commit a blocking foul because he did not obtain a LGP before the offensive player went airborne or did he establish a LGP?

An evaluator is going to ask you why you did not put air in the whistle and you will have to use the rules to defend your position. I would expect my student officials to justify their decision to either put air in their whistles or not put air in their whistles. Saying it was a no call is no answer.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The defender did not have LGP and the shooter was not put at a disadvantage, that's how.

So the defender committed a blocking foul. I can live with a blocking foul if you judged him to not have obtained LGP before the offensive went airborne. So why not call a blocking foul?

If the defender had obtained LGP, how would you justify not calling a PC on the offensive player for displacing the defender?

MTD, Sr.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

So the defender committed a blocking foul. I can live with a blocking foul if you judged him to not have obtained LGP before the offensive went airborne. So why not call a blocking foul?

If the defender had obtained LGP, how would you justify not calling a PC on the offensive player for displacing the defender?

MTD, Sr.

I haven't even looked at the video. I was speaking hypothetically. I know there was contact because you said so, and nobody disputed it. If this is a high flying spectacular dunk, the offensive player's knee could hit the defender in the head and knock him unconscious and it still may not be a foul. If the defender does have LGP and is displaced by the dunker, I don't see how you can justify a no call. And, yes, I am quite comfortable with that term.

[Welpe]

That looks like marginal contact that is embellished by the defender. Why else would he turn to his right and fall that direction when hit on the left? I'm fine with there not being a foul called there (ergo the phrase "no call").

[egj13]

I have a no call...and for reference before you ask me as well, I grew up with Pete Webb calling my high-school games...step father went to school with him.

I would "T" for taunting however...but on the dunk, the contact was marginal, the defender would have been better off staying on his feet and accepting the posterizing given him!

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Welpe

That looks like marginal contact that is embellished by the defender. Why else would he turn to his right and fall that direction when hit on the left? I'm fine with there not being a foul called there (ergo the phrase "no call").

This is the best justification I have seen. I also agree with the no call. It's such a simple thing that so few do, to look at the direction a player, or ball for that matter, moves after contact to determine what caused that movement. The defender gets light contact to his left side, yet turns right as he falls. No way the contact caused that. If the contact doesn't cause the displacement, then there's no way we're going the other way. Although there is no argument, everyone T's him up for being an idiot.

[zm1283]

I have a dunk and a technical on the "dunker" for taunting.

I also have the new Trail worrying about running the ball down and not doing a very good job of dead ball officiating.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Welpe

That looks like marginal contact that is embellished by the defender. Why else would he turn to his right and fall that direction when hit on the left? I'm fine with there not being a foul called there (ergo the phrase "no call").

Agree 100%. The contact was embellished. He wasn't displaced. The turn was completely wrong for where he supposedly got hit.

Then we have a T for taunting.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I assume that you know who Peter Webb is. Peter Webb would ask you the very same question. A no call implies that there was an infraction of the rules but the officials decided not to call it.

Therefore why did not feel that there was no infraction by either the offensive player or the defensive player.

MTD, Sr.

A no call implies he wouldn't put a whistle on the play...period. You can have a no call for a variety of reasons...those reasons can be valid or not valid. You've been around this forum long enough to know that

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

There is no such thing as a no call either you judged that there was an infraction of the rules or there was an infraction of the rules.

This is what happens when you post after your bedtime.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is what happens when you post after your bedtime.

Nevada, that was great. Mark, you've got to be at least smiling if not lol.
Also, I know the lead official on that play. He is an excellent official and I'm
sure he regrets taking his eye off the play to grab the ball. Which just goes to show . . . it can happen.

[Pantherdreams]

1) Defender does not establish LGP in my opionion. If you want to argue he did or that the offense intitiates contact I'm willing to accept that but its not going to change the next steps.

2) In view the defense is now responsible for contact so it the offensive player disadvantaged, impeded, put in danger, treated roughly . . . no. Contact is therefore determined to be incidental. If you feel the defender was there, because of embellishment and poor camera angle I cannot tell from the video how much contact the shooter created and how much that was responsible for displacing the defender. So incidental again from this view.

3) Incidental contact no whistle. Two points.

4) Now the dunker is doing the stare down thing. While this might depend on the level of the game in this case with this age group of player I'm comfortable going T.

Two Points - Followed by T.

[bainsey]

Mark, AremRed, play nice.

If I may speak for Mark, "no call" = "I ruled the play to be legal." That's all he's saying. That's hardly obtuse.

As for the play itself, I like Panther's assessment. To me, it looks like LGP was established after the shooter left the floor, so a charge isn't possible (unless the shooter kicks the defender, which he doesn't). Was the shooter disadvantaged? I don't think so, but I don't mind a block call here, either.

The T for taunting is the easiest part of this.

[zm1283]

I don't see how the taunting thing is a "Depending on the level thing". That would be a technical in NCAA and the NBA. It should be one in a high school game for sure.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

We had a long thread about assigners telling officials that when there are multiple bodies from opposing teams due to contact on the floor there had better be a fouled called.

So when kids trip over the lines on the floor we blow the whistle? Or flops? Can't wait to see the T's fly there.

BTW I fixed your logic a bit.