View Single Post
  #40   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-03-2014, 20:27
Steven Donow Steven Donow is offline
Registered User
AKA: Scooby
no team
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,335
Steven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond repute
Re: San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkausas View Post
Image of when 330's intake snapped our belt:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1LW...9FN3I0NXc/edit

Image of our belt dragging on the ground:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1L...it?usp=sharing

Later in the match 1266 was heavy defense on 987; however, they drove up onto 987 for a solid 4-5 seconds making obvious contact inside their frame perimeter.

Image of 1266 on top of 987:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1L...it?usp=sharing
They loaded for me. My opinion of this is an unfortunate truth of the reffing process: if a ref doesn't actually see 330's intake in there and physically snapping the belt, then how can they be certain that that's why the belt broke? As I did earlier in this thread (or another thread, I don't remember...), I'm simply playing the necessary devil's advocate in this discussion and am making no accusations whatsoever. We had this come into question at Mt. Olive, and unfortunately, since the ref didn't actually see the damage occur, it can't be called. Obviously, I can't speak for the refs at San Diego, but I empathize with them in that frame perimeter damage is one of the toughest things to call.