The issue, as I understand it, is whether the pick impacted the outcome of the play. So they aren't saying there wasn't a pick, there obviously was one, but the question is whether the defender that was picked could have made a play on the disc. I can't 100% tell from the camera angle, but it looks to me as though the defender that called the pick was a few steps behind their mark, who caught the score in stride during a sprint. This means the defender would have needed to catch up to her mark and take position to make a play on the disc, something that is highly unlikely given her delayed response to her mark taking off. This looks to me like a proper application of the pick rule: yes there was a pick, but it didn't impact the out come of the play. ps: had the catch not been for a score I would expect the picked player would have been allowed to catch up in order to be able to set a mark on the disc catcher as if the pick had not occurred.
@@johnhall3269 Thanks for explaining. That's fair reasoning and I think an accurate assessment of what the observer probably thought. I agree there was an obvious pick, and while I can appreciate that this is happening real time and we have the benefit of replay that the observers didn't, I think I would argue it should've been sent back. The deep cut started, pick occurred, and defender had stopped before the player who made the throw had even turned to look downfield. If someone is within 6ish feet and a pick occurs with circumstances like that, I think it's a stronger case to say it isn't obvious what the result would have been, a few steps or not. If no pick occurred, she might not have even made the throw. Maybe she would've. Hard to say... hence, it wasn't obvious, hence, I think it should've gone back. Regardless, heck of a throw and props to Carlton.
@@johnhall3269 I would argue that already the first step of the defender is affected by the pick. So, without the pick, she would/could have been really close.
Terrible call by the observer. Also deeply unclear, why white would object against the pick call...
The issue, as I understand it, is whether the pick impacted the outcome of the play. So they aren't saying there wasn't a pick, there obviously was one, but the question is whether the defender that was picked could have made a play on the disc. I can't 100% tell from the camera angle, but it looks to me as though the defender that called the pick was a few steps behind their mark, who caught the score in stride during a sprint. This means the defender would have needed to catch up to her mark and take position to make a play on the disc, something that is highly unlikely given her delayed response to her mark taking off. This looks to me like a proper application of the pick rule: yes there was a pick, but it didn't impact the out come of the play.
ps: had the catch not been for a score I would expect the picked player would have been allowed to catch up in order to be able to set a mark on the disc catcher as if the pick had not occurred.
@@johnhall3269 Thanks for explaining. That's fair reasoning and I think an accurate assessment of what the observer probably thought. I agree there was an obvious pick, and while I can appreciate that this is happening real time and we have the benefit of replay that the observers didn't, I think I would argue it should've been sent back. The deep cut started, pick occurred, and defender had stopped before the player who made the throw had even turned to look downfield. If someone is within 6ish feet and a pick occurs with circumstances like that, I think it's a stronger case to say it isn't obvious what the result would have been, a few steps or not. If no pick occurred, she might not have even made the throw. Maybe she would've. Hard to say... hence, it wasn't obvious, hence, I think it should've gone back.
Regardless, heck of a throw and props to Carlton.
@@johnhall3269 I would argue that already the first step of the defender is affected by the pick. So, without the pick, she would/could have been really close.