The Official Forum
Page 1 of 4 1 23 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   What say you on this dunk? (Video) (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/99119-what-say-you-dunk-video.html)

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:25pm
What say you on this dunk? (Video)
 
This happened last night: North Olmsted H.S. at Westlake H.S. I do not know who are the officials.

http://yahoo.thepostgame.com/blog/cl...ssover-dribble

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/yC5OAk9G3HQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I have a PC foul on the dunker followed by a TF on the dunker for taunting.

MTD, Sr.

AremRed Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:49pm
I've got a no call and tech for taunting.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 951573)
I've got a no call and tech for taunting.

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.

AremRed Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 951574)
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.
Wtf? We're done here Mark.

Rich Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 951574)
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.
Cause there wasn't - not before the taunt, anyway.

Hugh Refner Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark t. Denucci, sr. (Post 951571)
i have a pc foul on the dunker followed by a tf on the dunker for taunting.
+1

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 951576)
Wtf? We're done here Mark.

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.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 951577)
Cause there wasn't - not before the taunt, anyway.
There wasn't what?

MTD, Sr.

just another ref Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 951580)
There wasn't what?

MTD, Sr.
I don't presume to speak for Rich, but I believe he's saying that, other than the taunt, there was no infraction of the rules.


There seems to be an inexplicable communication gap here.

AremRed Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 951579)
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.
No, but by your description he sounds like the kind of asshøle official who would insist on "only using rulebook language."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 951579)
Therefore why did not feel that there was no infraction by either the offensive player or the defensive player.
Is that a question?

AremRed Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 951581)
There seems to be an inexplicable communication gap here.
It's not inexplicable, MTD Sr. is being obtuse again.

La Rikardo Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:11am
I have a two-point goal scored by Black #41 followed by an unsporting player technical foul on Black #41 for taunting an opponent.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 951581)
I don't presume to speak for Rich, but I believe he's saying that, other than the taunt, there was no infraction of the rules.


There seems to be an inexplicable communication gap here.

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.)

AremRed Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 951585)
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.
Probably because we were talking about "bodies" plural, not "a body" singular. Do you not remember what happened in the video?

just another ref Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 951585)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:38am.
Page 1 of 4 1 23 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1