While it's hard to tell from this angle, it would appear that Pangallo's left arm is coming down and is the first thing to make contact with the shooter. Obviously he jumped forward, but not sure that is the measure. Previous threads have talked about Pangallo being "straight up", that is not the case. I don't think it's a no call either as all the action is right on the ball and the contact exists. Like it or not, I think this is a foul on defender.

 

I disagree with the bolded.

I'm not convinced it's even a shot attempt. How do we know he wasn't passing the ball. He crashes into Pangallo with his best NFL move and the ball pops out.

I'm not convinced it's even a shot attempt. How do we know he wasn't passing the ball. He crashes into Pangallo with his best NFL move and the ball pops out.

 

 

That's a judgement call for the official. However, that was an easy judgement all once he determined there was a foul on Pangallo.

I disagree with this call at all levels. I understand the defender left his feet, which is poor defensive fundamentals, but to reward the offensive player is tough to swallow. I know he makes a heady play, but it's just cheap, IMO. I'd rather see a no call on this, but it probably won't happen...ever.

Ruthsatz = John Stockton. I'd take him on my team, very crafty.

 

It was very John Stockton-esque, and it was a foul. Not the deciding point of the game though. You have two D1 big man, the ball needed to go them more than it did. Needed to pick up the tempo, if the game is played in the 60's, I like the Breds chances more. It look like Dean Smith's 4 corner at one point.

 

Ron Dawn is still a freaking stud, he has forgot more basketball than I'll ever know, but I did think he got out coached yesterday.

Reads like a bad rule.

 

They call it like this in grade school, high school and college all the time. I too hate it, but it is the rule!

While it's hard to tell from this angle, it would appear that Pangallo's left arm is coming down and is the first thing to make contact with the shooter. Obviously he jumped forward, but not sure that is the measure. Previous threads have talked about Pangallo being "straight up", that is not the case. I don't think it's a no call either as all the action is right on the ball and the contact exists. Like it or not, I think this is a foul on defender.

 

We define "obviously" differently. This thread doesn't go 6+ pgs if that was obvious.

While it's hard to tell from this angle, it would appear that Pangallo's left arm is coming down and is the first thing to make contact with the shooter. Obviously he jumped forward, but not sure that is the measure. Previous threads have talked about Pangallo being "straight up", that is not the case. I don't think it's a no call either as all the action is right on the ball and the contact exists. Like it or not, I think this is a foul on defender.

I just watched the video over again to see where his feet were when he left the ground and they were at the college 3 pt line and watch where they land, he deffinatley wasn't jumping forward or his feet would of came down in front of the 3 pt line.Just saying.

I say no call.

I just watched the video over again to see where his feet were when he left the ground and they were at the college 3 pt line and watch where they land, he deffinatley wasn't jumping forward or his feet would of came down in front of the 3 pt line.Just saying.

 

The problem with using where landed as the basis is that if he was coming forward (which is what we're really debating) he still would have landed in the same spot due to the contact from Ruthsatz. That doesn't tell us if he was coming forward. Had there been no contact we could have then determined he was coming forward or not.

Interesting how we have "definetly" being applied to going forward and not going forward from multiple posters after watching the video over and over. I think the twist and contact along with the viewing angles are at play here. Sure makes a memorable game all the more so.

No question. CHARGE.

No question. CHARGE.

No question. CHARGE.

 

No question. CHARGE.

 

We get it. You think it's a charge.:lol2:

Interesting how we have "definetly" being applied to going forward and not going forward from multiple posters after watching the video over and over. I think the twist and contact along with the viewing angles are at play here. Sure makes a memorable game all the more so.

 

The fact that BGP cannot agree after having unfettered access to an instant replay (in real-time & slow mo) shows you that it was a tough call...