What exactly is your definition of "legitimate discussion?"

When one posts their thoughts and perceptions of something, and then is shown that they are wrong based on rules, case plays, videos, etc but still keeps harping on the same thing...how is that "legitimate discussion?" :confused:

I'm amazed you stick around at all considering how much you get beat about the head and shoulders.

To each his own, I guess.

In the case of the high school game with the late T for hanging on the rim, I posted what I saw and that I didn't think it should have been called. Someone else made a point, I re-watched it and changed my position.

In the case of UCLA-SMU, it eventually became an agreement to disagree from my end, with the exception of a few personal attacks I responded to.

Why We Get Paid The Big Bucks ...
 

10-3-3: A player shall not: Grasp either basket at any time during the game except to prevent injury.

I've never been able to dunk anything larger than a tennis ball, so I don't know what's it like to dunk a basketball, but I do know that, in some cases, it looks scary.

If a dunker hangs in the rim for a second, or so, to set up his landing to prevent an injury to himself, or to a player beneath him, it's a safety issue, so play on.

If a dunker hangs on the rim to show off (Hey everybody, look at me), it's a technical foul for an unsporting act, but it can also be a technical foul because the rules makers wanted to prevent damage to the rim, backboard, or supports.

In between lies judgment.

I've got to go back and adjust my previous comment. Although I think it is more gray than some here think, I'm comfortable with the T and actually probably would have called it live in the game. He does swing his legs up im a showboating manner.

I must admit I saw a few people say good call and jumped to the conclusion that it must have been wrong. After this priming - and watching on my iPhone - I tricked myself into saying no T. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

In my case I saw the pull he gave the rim, but didn't realize how extreme it was until another poster pointed out how high his feet ended up.

Hey everyone. Came to the board today just for this reason. I was actually at this game and nearly even with the hoop on Central Catholic's side at the time of this dunk. When I watched the dunk live, my first instinct was, "that's a technical." Not only did the player emphatically swing forward, you can see him do a little shimmy with his shoulders. The end line angle really does not do the play justice. Had this play happened early in the game, it would not have even been questioned. It was one of those plays where a player is trying to put an exclamation point on a game, which, even with 40 seconds left, was still in some doubt. If the call is going to be correct in the 1st QTR, it should be correct with 40 seconds left in the 4th QTR. I give a lot of credit to the official for applying the technical. In the end it did not cost them the game (as some news outlets eagerly have protested), Defiance took the game from them.

Actually, it comes from reading a string of posts that read like a fan wrote them.

Weren't they up at least a couple possessions-worth of points after the made dunk? I could see making the argument that it "cost" them the game if the dunk had only tied it, but that wouldn't make the call incorrect.

The dunk put C.C.C. up four, then Defiance hit the ensuing free throws. They they got a layup with about 20 seconds left to tie it. Defiance hit some big shots in overtime to deal it, and they hit almost all their free throws.

Body language tells all
 

Not only was this a good call - aggressively pulls down on the rim, swings feet up, hangs there even though no one is close to being underneath him, let's rim snap back up in dramatic fashion - but after he returns to the floor he poses for the crowd with a quick fist pump to boot. Clearly the dunk was more for show than necessity. He didn't cross the line for a taunting T here but got real close to it. Together with the dunk it is more than enough evidence to support the officials judgement that a T for the dunk was warranted here.

What does this mean?

Underneath ...
 

The technical foul may be a correct interpretation, but this (above) is irrelevant to the post. The part of the rule regarding a player underneath the "grasper" was deleted back in the twentieth century, although the statement could be relevant (safety concern for player underneath) if there was a player underneath him, but there wasn't.

10-3-3: A player shall not: Grasp either basket at any time during the game except to prevent injury.

This is my thought on a lot of end-of-game calls that get questioned. While there may be times when you might change the way you call a game based on the time and/or score, this doesn't seem to be one of those times. The outcome of the game is still in question, so call it the right way.

In all honesty, there are times when I might change how something is called, but it all has to do with reaction to calls, not the calls themselves.

IOW, if a kid or coach reacts a bit more vehemently in the heat of a critical moment, I may choose to let them release some steam. In a blowout or in the second quarter, I may respond a bit differently.

I'm sure some would be offended by that (or by my admitting that), but that's just how I see it.