What say you on this dunk? (Video)

[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.

[mutantducky]

good dunk, no foul. then Tech. IMO

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by 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.

What I've heard more recently (which I like a lot better) is: "if bodies are on the floor you need a whistle or you should know how they got there." Contact can be severe and not necessarily mean a foul occured.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

What I've heard more recently (which I like a lot better) is: "if bodies are on the floor you need a whistle or you should know how they got there." Contact can be severe and not necessarily mean a foul occured.

You know, I've heard this too, but I disagree. This statement implies that if you have bodies on the floor but don't know how they got there, then you need to have a whistle. Doesn't that imply that you need to guess???