What say you on this dunk? (Video)

[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.

[Raymond]

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.

Therefore, why did you decide that there was no infraction of the rules by either the offensive the player or the defensive player?

MTD, Sr.

When someone posts a play to be reviewed, you either have a call or a no-call on subject play.

[Hugh Refner]

Originally Posted by mark t. Denucci, sr.

i have a pc foul on the dunker followed by a tf on the dunker for taunting.

+1

[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.

[griblets]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I'm with MTD on this one, PC then TF. I don't see it as much as embellishment as ducking for protection. Have we forgotten about Rule 4-23-3e?

“e. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact”

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by griblets

I'm with MTD on this one, PC then TF. I don't see it as much as embellishment as ducking for protection. Have we forgotten about Rule 4-23-3e?

“e. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact”

And, if the defender "turning and/or ducking, to absorb the shock of imminent contact," reduced the contact to a level of "incidental contact," then no call would be made. I've seen defenders "turn and/or duck" so much that the imminent contact never occurred, and it was evident that it wasn't an attempt to flop or embelish the contact.
The camera angle on this play is less than ideal. From the Lead's position, the contact apparently seemed to be incidental in severity, and his partners apparently trusted his judgment.

[Kansas Ref]

I agree, "bodies on the floor", is a flawed philosophy. It takes experience and temerity to not pop your whistle when this occurs. We all know the type of plays this occurs in--e.g., both player pursuing a ball wherein each has equal access to, etc...
Even here, I frequently hear Assignors say: "if bodies are on the floor, then pop your whistle on something".
All, it wil take one good ref at a time to dislodge (no pun intended) this very staid mis-belief.