I totally agree. My first reaction the first time I watched it was "T". He also fist pounds his chest afterwards. He wasn't challenged on the rise to the rim and there is no one under him. To me this is an easy one. Even his coach didn't defend it.

This.
"Hey guys, did you see me on that dunk? I kicked the support arm! Wasn't that cool?"
"Uhh, no, it wasn't! Your showboating cost us the game!?!"

I've seen hanging for safety reasons. If you think he was hanging like that, with his feet way up and all, for safety then you're looking for it. I don't have to look for anything to see a showboat worthy of a tech.

Exactly. If this doesn't qualify, they may as well get rid of the rule or re-word it to require a chin up or a roar or something.

Did he swing them for no reason? Or was his forward momentum such that his legs kept going when he dunked and he couldn't let go lest he fall flat on his back? I think a reasonable case can be made it was that. In any case, I don't see it at all as a clear-cut no brainer.

Edited to add:

Here's a different view of the play, from the high center cam. The players has a considerable amount of forward momentum. If he let go, he's flat on the ground.

http://usatodayhss.com/2015/clevelan...oys-basketball

Unless he was running like a cheetah, he wouldn't have had enough momentum to cause his legs to go anywhere near that high. He deliberately pulled them up that high and deliberately put himself in that position and the only way he falls on his back is because he did so. He may have had some momentum and a right to hang on but he gave that right up by pulling his legs up to showboat.

You're just looking for a way to avoid blowing the whistle, probably saying you want the kids to decide the game. But, you know what, you just decided the game by not properly calling an obvious infraction. The player decided the game for you and you reversed it by not calling the earned T.

If he never hangs on, he doesn't have to worry about it.

Here's an idea...don't grab the rim and momentum isn't an issue!

There's certainly an element of momentum here, but I think the player gives an extra something in addition to momentum...watch the left leg lag behind then kick up higher than the right.

I'm not saying I would have had the stones to call it given the situation, but I think the official nailed it.

I think if anything this is the closest to the heart of the issues here:

1) Their seems to be a camp of people (not a lot here though) that seem to think dunking in unnecessary and inherently showy so they are already sensitive to the issue. They may not be looking for a T but anything beyond dropping the ball through the hoop irks them some how.

2a) Because of lack of clarity or lack of enforcement in regards to the rule players who dunk often do not go up with thought/regard for the landing. THey habitually dunk and grab the rim to use it gather and reposition themselves before the landing and feel like its part of the prcoess. Now when a kid really hammers one down in a game the extra umph without any regards for jumping/landing technique he needs to "hang" or "swing" to land safely.

2b) Chicken/egg? Now you've got players who are legally allowed to do something but don't do it in a way that allows them to finish the play within the confines of the rules expectations. Did this start happening because it wasn't being called at T in the past or did we stop calling it a T because it happened so frequently.

3) This can be an issue of clients. If you work in a rural public school area you might see a few dunks a year in games if you are lucky. If you work in inner city public or even private schools you might have to work games routinely where 10% of the rim finishes in a game are dunks. This will adjust your threshold.


Back to the OP. This is closer for me then it s for some here. I can support the T but I'm not sure if in real time at the game I'm calling it or not.

How about we just discuss the merits of the case without you telling me what I'm thinking or why I'm thinking it when you have no idea? You think it's obvious? Fine...that's your judgment. I don't think it's anywhere near that obvious and that a reasonable case can be made on the side. Personally, I'm split on it and can see it justifiable either way, a close call, but probably a T. Disagree if you don't see it that way, but spare me the fanboy accusation.

the fanboy accusation seems to be a default charge by some here when they get opinions that don't match what they believe in.
I agree with the T. But yeah I also think it was reasonable to pass on it. I would have called it. But I'm sure if you had a room of 10 refs, there would be 3 or 4 who would have passed on it.

I don't care what fanboys think, but if you don't put a whistle on this, you're likely going to have to answer to an angry Defiance coach and the OHSAA supervisor.

The rule supports the call.

I'm surprised we haven't seen twocentsworth yet.

Biggest negative on these forums.

If that is the biggest negative, then this is a superb forum. Because sites I see that don't involve officials are full of a bunch of jacka$$es who purposely discard any semblance social etiquette and respectful discourse. You should be happy to be here.

If the shoe fits...

You've got that issue on multiple sports on multiple forums. So maybe it's not the rest of the world.