Fun With Rebounds ...

[BillyMac]

I originally didn't want to post this video on the Forum because I didn't think it was a tough situation. That is until I later received the IAABO International Play Commentary.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...2lWyrmVQ%3D%3D

IAABO International only gives two choices: travel violation, or a foul (doesn't specify on whom).

Here’s my comment: Travel violation. A player holding the ball may not touch the floor with a knee or any other part of the body other than hand or foot.

Disclaimer: For IAABO Eyes Only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This should have been ruled a foul.

This is a challenging play for the crew based on where the Lead was positioned when the action occurred. Both the Lead and the Center have tough angles on the play because of how the play developed. We generally recommend the Lead official to avoid ruling across the lane, but in this case, it was appropriate for the Lead to rule on this play as he had the best view to see if the rebounder had control of the ball as she went to the floor.

The Center has a very good open view angle between the offensive and defensive rebounders as the ball comes off the ring. He does an excellent job of ruling the initial rebounding action to be incidental contact. Neither rebounder puts the other at a disadvantage attempting to gain access to the ball.

The play gets more challenging as the defensive rebounder (White #14) begins her attempt to secure the ball. The ball comes off the ring and is a bit behind her, so she lunges backward toward and is off-balance as she secures the ball. Blue #32 does attempt to secure the ball and, in the process, does make slight contact on the arm of White #14. This contact has no impact on White #14 securing control and was properly ruled incidental. The fact that White #14 ended up on the court is more of a result of being off-balance than because of any contact that may have been committed by Blue #32 on this play.

As White#14 secures control and lands on the floor, it is very difficult for the Center to know for sure if White #14 has control of the ball as she lands on the floor. The Lead does an excellent job realizing that he had the best view of that aspect of the play and properly ruled a traveling violation.

It is often difficult for officials to resist ruling a foul when players end up on the floor. But this play shows that sometimes contact is not how it appears from the stands. In this case, this was legal incidental contact, and it had no bearing on the subsequent violation committed by White #14.

Problem: The ruling (foul) doesn't match the commentary (travel). Simple mistake?

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video (only two choices): Travel: 78% (including me); Foul: 22%.

[Raymond]

I assume it's a mistake. The blue defender does not do anything to cause the white rebounder to fall.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I assume it's a mistake.

Agree. The ruling (foul) didn't match the commentary (travel). I'm going with the explanatory commentary.

[Camron Rust]

No wonder we have confused officials...the rulings coming from authorities are even contradicting themselves!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... rulings coming from authorities are even contradicting themselves!

That's my modus operandi. I've learned from the best.

[JRutledge]

I have a simple travel.

Peace