What say you on this dunk? (Video)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

We had a long thread about assigners telling officials that when there are bodies on the floor there had better be a fouled called.

Therefore, how can there not be a whistle and a foul: either a PC by the dunker or a block by the defender? And there was contact between the two players involved.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. And I am not being obtuse (See Post #11.)

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

[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.

[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.

[Kansas Ref]

Every year at our NFHS interps meeting I ask this question: "when will the NFHS implement a Restricted Area semi-circle marking under the basket on the floor of highschool gymnasia? Like they have in college and nba?"

And, each year I get the canned response from whomever is leading the discussion: "we don't need one because our refs have good judgement."

In this present video case the officials would have been greatly aided by having such a reference marking on the floor. It appeared that the defender established LGP far enough from the front end of the rim (i.e., was not under the rim). Although spectacular, the dunk was a charge. I call "charge", then "taunting" T--as the taunt was egregious.

[APG]

I know they aren't your words, but I don't think the NBA and NCAA implemented the RA because their officials weren't good enough to adjudicate block/charge plays.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

Every year at our NFHS interps meeting I ask this question: "when will the NFHS implement a Restricted Area semi-circle marking under the basket on the floor of highschool gymnasia? Like they have in college and nba?"

And, each year I get the canned response from whomever is leading the discussion: "we don't need one because our refs have good judgement."

In this present video case the officials would have been greatly aided by having such a reference marking on the floor. It appeared that the defender established LGP far enough from the front end of the rim (i.e., was not under the rim). Although spectacular, the dunk was a charge. I call "charge", then "taunting" T--as the taunt was egregious.

So what? Did the defender have LGP? Was there advantage/disadvantage?

The defender's location on the floor tells me absolutely nothing, as it isn't relevant at all on whether contact is a foul (*in an NFHS game*).

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Rich

So what? Did the defender have LGP? Was there advantage/disadvantage?

The defender's location on the floor tells me absolutely nothing, as it isn't relevant at all on whether contact is a foul (*in an NFHS game*).

Correct in this case, but not in general. A foot on the OOB line would be relevant by the defense as you could not have a LGP.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

Correct in this case, but not in general. A foot on the OOB line would be relevant by the defense as you could not have a LGP.

The only thing he referenced was this case. Why muddy the waters? For what it's worth, I'm with the no-call followed by a T. And I don't care how great this official is, you don't go chasing the ball. Good dead ball officiating is critical after a play like this.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Smitty

you don't go chasing the ball

Just leave it at that. This was the worst part of the video IMO. Leave the ball alone, somebody will go get it!

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Just leave it at that. This was the worst part of the video IMO. Leave the ball alone, somebody will go get it!

Good point. I updated my post.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

Every year at our NFHS interps meeting I ask this question: "when will the NFHS implement a Restricted Area semi-circle marking under the basket on the floor of highschool gymnasia? Like they have in college and nba?"

And, each year I get the canned response from whomever is leading the discussion: "we don't need one because our refs have good judgement."

In this present video case the officials would have been greatly aided by having such a reference marking on the floor. It appeared that the defender established LGP far enough from the front end of the rim (i.e., was not under the rim). Although spectacular, the dunk was a charge. I call "charge", then "taunting" T--as the taunt was egregious.

Why would that matter? Distance form the rim should be no part of deciding if this play is or is not a charge or block in a HS game. If you are basing your calls in a HS on where the defender is you are getting many of those calls wrong.

If you're working NCAA or NBA games, then the location does matter. But, you have the markings there too.

You can't call HS games by NCAA rules and be right when the rules are different.

[fullor30]

Nothing and a T for taunt

[buffafox]

I had a play like this that happened to me last week. I called an offensive foul because I saw contact but didn't see where the contact occurred. My partner, who is a veteran official and was trail, asked me after the game what I saw. He asked me what I could have done better. I told him I should have cut into the paint to get a better angle and he agreed.

I recently got film on that game and reviewed it, specifically that call. If I was in a better position, I wouldn't have called the foul. In this situation, the official was in position, saw that the defender flopped had no foul.

I would also have called a technical for taunting.