What say you on this dunk? (Video)

[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???