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.

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.

Wtf? We're done here Mark.

Cause there wasn't - not before the taunt, anyway.

+1

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.

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.

No, but by your description he sounds like the kind of asshøle official who would insist on "only using rulebook language."

Is that a question?

It's not inexplicable, MTD Sr. is being obtuse again.

I have a two-point goal scored by Black #41 followed by an unsporting player technical foul on Black #41 for taunting an opponent.

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.)

Probably because we were talking about "bodies" plural, not "a body" singular. Do you not remember what happened in the video?

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

Just because the offensive player made a spectacular leap into the air to attempt a successful dunk, he must do it in a legal manner.

The video shows the offensive player's knee striking the defender in the front of his left shoulder and displaces the defender. Did the defender commit a blocking foul because he did not obtain a LGP before the offensive player went airborne or did he establish a LGP?

An evaluator is going to ask you why you did not put air in the whistle and you will have to use the rules to defend your position. I would expect my student officials to justify their decision to either put air in their whistles or not put air in their whistles. Saying it was a no call is no answer.

MTD, 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.

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").

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!

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.

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.

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.

A no call implies he wouldn't put a whistle on the play...period. You can have a no call for a variety of reasons...those reasons can be valid or not valid. You've been around this forum long enough to know that

This is what happens when you post after your bedtime.

Nevada, that was great. Mark, you've got to be at least smiling if not lol.
Also, I know the lead official on that play. He is an excellent official and I'm
sure he regrets taking his eye off the play to grab the ball. Which just goes to show . . . it can happen.

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.

Mark, AremRed, play nice. :D

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.

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.

So when kids trip over the lines on the floor we blow the whistle? Or flops? Can't wait to see the T's fly there.

BTW I fixed your logic a bit.

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.

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.

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*).

In that thread there was A LOT of disagreement about HAVING to have a whistle simply b/c bodies are on the floor. I know many assigners who do not subscribe to that flawed philosophy.

And that was about MULTIPLE bodies on the floor. Here, there is one.

I have a good dunk (a No Call) followed by 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”

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.

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.

good dunk, no foul. then Tech. IMO

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.

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.

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.

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???

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.

I'm not looking to whack players, but I make a point to keep a close eye on a player just after and on the trip down the floor after he completes a monster dunk. That kind of taunt is step one towards a bigger problem I might have to deal with.

Nothing and a T for taunt

Mark, to the rest of us, a "no call" means there's nothing to call.

Yup, Yup,Yup

Since we seem to be really into semantics on this thread....

"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."


I didn't know contact by definition was a foul?

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

No … that is a missed call.

A “no call” in officiating vernacular means “I don’t have a call on that play” … or, in a way you might prefer, “I judged that there was not an infraction of the rules”

This is pretty much accepted by everyone.

I'm much more concerned about the blatant taunt that was not penalized than I am about the possibility of a PC foul. That was as obvious as it gets, and three officials missed it. No excuse for that IMO. We would get blasted in South Carolina if we didn't call that.

Good discussion
 

The taunting T is easy, and we all seem to agree.

I'm surprised that so many would no call on the dunk. If I had a knee hit the left side of my face, I'd jerk to the right, too. I've watched several times, and I just can't see passing on PC.

Watch again

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.

Similar event
 

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.