mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-17-17 03:05 PM - Post#222106
In response to Chet Forte
Not that it should matter what the player whistled for a foul thinks (relative to say, the official or head of officiating), but Alex says:
"However, that time, I was called for a controversial offensive foul after the shot had dropped through the bottom of the net."
He called it controversial, which it was, but not "bogus."
I'll reiterate that a common misconception about that call often arises from the different definitions of a charge for a primary and secondary defender.
The call was correct by the letter of the law. As he goes up for the shot, Alex's elbow extends into Rivard's vertical plane toward his head. He probably would have gotten away with that part. But as he takes off, he launches forward, putting his body at about a 70-80 degree angle with the ground with his waist and above projecting into that imaginary vertical plane that starts at Rivard's feet. Rivard begins to fall backwards matching Alex's angle. By the time Alex lets go, he's at about a 60 degree angle with the ground and Rivard has been knocked off his feet. If you walk through the game footage and hit play/pause frequently, you can clearly see this progression.
It's a clear charge in that frame-by-frame view, but I can't imagine it was as clear to the refs in real time. That's why I was shocked that they made the call they did in that spot.
|
