What say you on this dunk? (Video)

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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



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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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]

Originally Posted by mark t. Denucci, sr.

i have a pc foul on the dunker followed by a tf on the dunker for taunting.

+1

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.]

Originally Posted by Rich

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

There wasn't what?

MTD, Sr.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, 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.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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."

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Therefore why did not feel that there was no infraction by either the offensive player or the defensive player.

Is that a question?

Originally Posted by just another ref

There seems to be an inexplicable communication gap here.

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

[La Rikardo]

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.]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.)

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.

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