Drive to the basket and rebounding action (Video)

[JRutledge]

This was sent to me by one of the officials on the game. He wanted opinions so this is why I am posting this here.



Peace

[HokiePaul]

Initial drive - no foul
Second shot - looks like the defender (#11) is moving into the shooter, but the lead has a much better angle than we do.

[chapmaja]

Sorry, somehow linked to a different video this one.

[bob jenkins]

I'd like to see it from C's side to see if there's a hand-check foul -- but I wouldn't call one from just the video.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

Initial drive - no foul
Second shot - looks like the defender (#11) is moving into the shooter, but the lead has a much better angle than we do.

I disagree, I think the defender does move into the shooter on the initial shot attempt and think the second shot attempt looks cleaner, but like you said, its about the angle.

[jpgc99]

No foul on the initial drive.

Defender jumps and maintains verticality. Correct No Call.

[ballgame99]

Very tough without a lower angle, but my initial reaction:

1) possible hand check on primary defender, certainly looks like he illegally redirects the offensive player on the drive (doesn't maintain LGP).

2) defender on the initial drive does not look like he maintains verticality, his arms are vertical but he looks to be jumping sideways/forward.

3 possible foul on white on the rebound of the initial shot.

4) second shot attempt; I am ok with the no call since defense appears to be more or less legal and the contact that is there is created by the offense. I certainly wouldn't think twice if a foul was called on defense though.

[Raymond]

I have a foul on the second shot for the defender's A-2-B movement into the shooter.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[OKREF]

He jumps vertical, but his arms are extended beyond his vertical plane.

[BryanV21]

I've got nothing here. I wouldn't get up in arms if a foul were called (especially by somebody with a better angle than me), but with this look I'm letting them play.

[deecee]

nope play on. good defense.

[johnny d]

Tell Honacki to blow his whistle. Foul on the second shot.

[Camron Rust]

Nothing on either.

Defender jumped straight up on the first...the contact is what made him shift off the spot, not a sideways jump.

On the 2nd, it was REALLY close but I think the defender got there just in time and had his arms sufficiently vertical.

[crosscountry55]

Assuming there's not a handcheck that I just can't see on this video, I've got nothing, nothing, and nothing.



We can split hairs on what we'd do if we were robots, but putting myself on the floor and observing that play....that's a lot of good defense, none of which has a standout moment of illegality.



Who was it several months (years?) ago on the forum that said it's better to assume players are going to do legal things, because then when they don't the calls identify themselves? This is a case where the calls didn't really identify themselves. I like the no calls.

[bucky]

Technical travel on person catching inbounds pass. I have a feeling that JD would want a foul (arm bar type) called on the very first move. Perhaps a call there would have helped the game. The announcer notes that they are "letting them play". Foul call could have mediated a bit or they were just going to continue allowing that action.