Quote:
|
Originally Posted by OHBBREF
These are two different situations handled differently.
on the rebounding there is a lot of contact true, but does that contact displace and result in an advantage for the player initiatiing the contact.
A lot of what you see is a big player just out jumping another big player for the ball.
As long as the player on the outside doesn't initiate the contact and displace the inside player to get the ball. it is just inadvertant contact. It doesn't mean anything as long as everyone is going straight up and we have no advantage it is all good.
here is a question for you
If an offensive player jumps forward toward the basket to take a jump shot and the defender is between him and the basket jumps forward to defend against the shot and their is minimal torso and hip contact (with no contact above the shoulders) as the offensive player makes the jump shot who is the foul on?
|
I understand the rebounding contact. But what I’m referring to is the contact prior to rebounding. Situation: A2 and B2 are post player under the board. A1 shoots a perimeter shot. A2 and B2 are both facing the basket with A2 just behind and off the outer shoulder of B2. As the shot goes though the air B2 brings out just a little bit of elbow and start pushing A2 out and away from the basket. He’s not elbowing A2 or anything like that. Just back pushing. This ends up giving B2 a much better advantage at getting the rebound than A2. It seems that who ever is the strongest wins the position. I see this all the time but rarely gets called. By definition in the rules, I believe that this should be a foul. However, it appears that this is a one of those times when the refs are to “lighten up” on the contact rules as to let the big boys bump a little. I certainly don’t know this for sure. Just learning.
To answer you question, I believe we have a personal foul on the defender IF the contact disrupted the shot because he moved toward the shooter. You stated “minimal torso and hip contact (with no contact above the shoulders)”. So I would think that no disadvantage was gained, therefore a no-call. IMO.