This has always been a tough call for me.

F (front) is in front of B (back).
F and B are in the paint.
A shot goes up and rebounds toward F and B.
B jumps first, and high, and grabs the ball, while legally reaching over F's back, head and shoulders.
F jumps late, but very vertically, and reaches the ball after B, whose outstretched hands, over F, still have the ball.
There is contact on B's arms as F reaches for the ball.
The contact causes the ball to be released, indicating that there was sufficient contact.

The safe call is a no call.
What is the proper call?

mick

If F and B are on the same team, then a no call is the proper call. ;)

If F and B are on the same team and both names are not in the score book, I have ONE technical foul! :D

If F and B are on different teams, then I have a foul on F. :(

[Edited by BktBallRef on Jan 3rd, 2001 at 10:12 PM]

I have a foul on B, if any foul at all.

4-44-4 states that the defender shall not be penalized for having "arms extended within his/her vertical plane."

Once B reaches out, he violates F's 'airspace,' and a foul is his responsibility.

I've got a foul on F. If B legally rebounded the ball, then F's actions (contact) caused the ball to come loose, easy call. Common foul on F.

The only other option is a no call. B did nothing to warrant a foul.

Right -- but F isn't being penalized for having the arms extended, F is being penalized for extendinghis arms.

F initiated the contact. If it's a foul, it's a foul on F.

Hang with your instinct, Mick!
 

I'll most likely have a "no call" if the contact can pass as incidental. If it can't, I'll call the foul on F. How can you penalize B for LEGALLY getting to the rebound first? In my opinion, you can't and shouldn't!

Now, coach F & the F fans are going to think you are whacked out, BUT, in my opinion, you've made the correct call.

B is violating F's vertical space, just because F was not there to start with doesn't mean that he still isn't entitled to it. If I make the call it is on B.


Now if you called a foul on F, it is because he jumped <i> backwards </i> right? Violating B's space.

Interesting, Brian. You're going to call a foul on B when B grabs the ball out of the air, doesn't make ANY contact with F; AND THEN, F jumps up, initiates contact with B, and knocks the ball out of B's hands by making this contact on B's arms????

I just can't see it. I'm sticking to my call! Of course, it's only my opinion, too.

This might be one of those things that you just need to see. Looking at it on paper, I feel that if B was not in F's space there would be no contact. So should I penalize F for exercising his right to his veritical space? On paper I say no, but seeing it full speed in real life, I might have a different opinion.

[Edited by Brian Watson on Jan 4th, 2001 at 09:04 AM]

I think that any time you jump and reach over someone to get the ball, you risk being responsible for any contact that occurs. If it is insufficient to call a foul, or if no contact ends up occurring, B is in the clear. But if contact occurs, I think that B is responsible. I don't be;lieve that F initiated the contact merely because F jumped after B. I have a hard time with the concept that B obtains the right to space directly above F by jumping first. I can only see a no call or a foul on B.

Other than maybe "HEY REF, 3 Seconds, can't you count?" the "Hey, Over the back" is my most commonly heard complaint. As a coach, are you willing to accept a no call on this one? No call is my first inclination.

Tony,
You are a Turkey!
mick

Foul on B (who casued the contact by violating F's space).

I can accept no call. If B can jump over A and either avoid contact or have contact that does not warrant a foul, that's just good aggressive bball. But if you think you have a foul, I feel that it has to be on B. It seems bizarre to call a foul on F for going straight up for a rebound and running into someone who tried to jump over them. Sorry B, you almost made a great play.

BTW, you won't hear me call for an over the back after all of the discussion on this board. I may ask nicely for a push, though;)

If you no call it, you're effectively saying that B is at fault but you're passing on it. Otherwise, you have to call the foul on F since the contact caused B to lose the ball.

Gobble, gobble! :)

I don't think you have to call a foul on a player when a legal move causes contact that dislodges the ball. I don't know if legal guarding position is the most appropriate place to go (because article 1 applies it to establishing position on an offensive opponent), but I can find no other rule that easily applies. Lets assume that the front player is on defense and the back player is on offense when the shot is released.

4-23

"ART. 2 . . . To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the floor.
b. The front of the guard's torso must be facing the opponent.
ART. 3 . . . After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard is not required to have either or both feet on the floor or continue facing the opponent.
b. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.
c. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane."

We can easily write this scenario where F faces B, establishes position, reacts to a shot and turns (still legal under 3a), B jumps above F (remember F is already in legal guarding position before B leaves floor so 4-23-5d does not apply), and F jumps vertically into B (which is still fine by 3c).

If you write this situation as an alley oop pass instead of a rebound, the foul is clearly on B because F established and maintained legal guarding position throughout the play. B is clearly an offensive opponent because B's team had possession and there was no shot. Lacking any other guidance to the contrary, it seems that the same logic should apply on a rebound. F established and maintained legal guarding position. Any contact is the fault of B, so you either have no call or a foul on B.

If you hate this way of analyzing it, we could go to 4-27, incidental contact.

"ART. 5 . . . If, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from a position from which he/she has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility is on the player in the unfavorable position. "

IMO, being able to jump vertically represents a reasonable chance to play the ball. If B jumps over F so that F cannot jump vertically to get the rebound without contacting B, the fault is with B for having placed himself in an unfavorable position. You now decide whether you have incidental contact (and a no-call) or a foul on B. It may seem like you are penalizing B for a great play, but you are really penalizing B for attempting a risky great play and commiting a foul in the process.

[Edited by Hawks Coach on Jan 5th, 2001 at 07:59 AM]

Hawks' Coach asks my question: Could F be doing great defense, and B is violating his vertical space? Do those rules of verticality apply here?

Missed these references in my last post, rainmaker. I think the answer is clearly yes.

"Rule 4 SECTION 36 REBOUNDING
ART. 2 . . . To obtain or maintain legal rebounding position, a player may not: (. . .)
d. Violate the principle of verticality"
"Rule 4 SECTION 44 VERTICALITY
Verticality applies to a legal position. The basic components of the principle of verticality are:
ART. 1 . . . Legal guarding position must be obtained initially and movement thereafter must be legal.
ART. 2 . . . From this position, the defender may rise or jump vertically and occupy the space within his/her vertical plane.
ART. 3 . . . The hands and arms of the defender may be raised within his/her vertical plane while on the floor or in the air.
ART. 4 . . . The defender should not be penalized for leaving the floor vertically or having his/her hands and arms extended within his/her vertical plane.
ART. 5 . . . The offensive player whether on the floor or airborne, may not "clear out" or cause contact within the defender's vertical plane which is a foul.
ART. 6 . . . . The defender may not "belly up" or use the lower part of the body or arms to cause contact outside his/her vertical plane which is a foul.
ART. 7 . . . The player with the ball is to be given no more protection or consideration than the defender in judging which player has violated the rules."

The front player has a legally established a legal position on the floor. By the rebounding rule, it seems that they now have a right to the vertical plane as described in Section 44. F has not caused contact outside of that plane. Therefore, contact, if it occurs and is considered to be a foul, is the fault of the player who jumped over and violated that plane.

Help me here
 

Coach,
Rule 4-23-2 To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
The front of the guard's torso must be facing the opponent.

In the initial case, that is not the case.

Or, are you changing the case?

mick

Re: Help me here
 

Yes, I changed the case to make a point about how you can construct this in such a way that B clearly should not be able to jump with impunity over the vertical area that belongs to F merely by having F begin by facing B. I then look at the rules on incidental contact and rebounding and conclude that B has both put himself in an unfavorable position and violated the principle of verticality. When you consider that on rebounds many players change positions, I think that the concept of verticality would have nothing to do with the direction one player faced relative to another at the time they established their position. The fact that they applied verticality to rebounds indicates that players own the space over them on rebounds, and if contact occurs, the fault is with the player who violates that vertical plane.

Suppose you believe the opposite, that B must face the player in question prior to establishing rebounding position and verticality. Then you could have this scenario. B is in a legal position with respect to A1 with his back to A2. B turns his back to A1 and maintains that position (and verticality)while never facing A2 who is now in motion. A2 physicially moves into the exact spot that A1 occupied after B turned his back to that spot. B now loses his right to verticality with respect to A2 because verticality is always established relative to a single player that B faces. This just doesn't make sense, nor does any rule suggest this should be the case.

I find no rule that suggests that player A can ever jump over player B and deny to B the vertical area above B merely because B established rebounding position with his back facing player A rather than his front. However, I find plenty to suggest that the intent of all of these rules is precisely the opposite, i.e., with two feet planted on the floor in preparation to rebound, B owns the vertical plane above him. A violates that vertical plane and any resulting contact is the fault of A.

Re: Re: Help me here, thanks.
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hawks Coach

Quote:

Originally posted by mick Yes, I changed the case to make a point about how you can construct this in such a way that B clearly should not be able to jump with impunity over the vertical area that belongs to F merely by having F begin by facing B. I then look at the rules on incidental contact and rebounding and conclude that B has both put himself in an unfavorable position and violated the principle of verticality. When you consider that on rebounds many players change positions, I think that the concept of verticality would have nothing to do with the direction one player faced relative to another at the time they established their position. The fact that they applied verticality to rebounds indicates that players own the space over them on rebounds, and if contact occurs, the fault is with the player who violates that vertical plane. Suppose you believe the opposite, that B must face the player in question prior to establishing rebounding position and verticality. Then you could have this scenario. B is in a legal position with respect to A1 with his back to A2. B turns his back to A1 and maintains that position (and verticality)while never facing A2 who is now in motion. A2 physicially moves into the exact spot that A1 occupied after B turned his back to that spot. B now loses his right to verticality with respect to A2 because verticality is always established relative to a single player that B faces. This just doesn't make sense, nor does any rule suggest this should be the case. I find no rule that suggests that player A can ever jump over player B and deny to B the vertical area above B merely because B established rebounding position with his back facing player A rather than his front. However, I find plenty to suggest that the intent of all of these rules is precisely the opposite, i.e., with two feet planted on the floor in preparation to rebound, B owns the vertical plane above him. A violates that vertical plane and any resulting contact is the fault of A.

Coach,
You make a very strong argument.
You have looked at the word of the rules and have examined the intent of the rules.
mick

Yes, now the kicker...
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mick

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawks Coach Quote: Originally posted by mick Yes, I changed the case to make a point about how you can construct this in such a way that B clearly should not be able to jump with impunity over the vertical area that belongs to F merely by having F begin by facing B. I then look at the rules on incidental contact and rebounding and conclude that B has both put himself in an unfavorable position and violated the principle of verticality. When you consider that on rebounds many players change positions, I think that the concept of verticality would have nothing to do with the direction one player faced relative to another at the time they established their position. The fact that they applied verticality to rebounds indicates that players own the space over them on rebounds, and if contact occurs, the fault is with the player who violates that vertical plane. Suppose you believe the opposite, that B must face the player in question prior to establishing rebounding position and verticality. Then you could have this scenario. B is in a legal position with respect to A1 with his back to A2. B turns his back to A1 and maintains that position (and verticality)while never facing A2 who is now in motion. A2 physicially moves into the exact spot that A1 occupied after B turned his back to that spot. B now loses his right to verticality with respect to A2 because verticality is always established relative to a single player that B faces. This just doesn't make sense, nor does any rule suggest this should be the case. I find no rule that suggests that player A can ever jump over player B and deny to B the vertical area above B merely because B established rebounding position with his back facing player A rather than his front. However, I find plenty to suggest that the intent of all of these rules is precisely the opposite, i.e., with two feet planted on the floor in preparation to rebound, B owns the vertical plane above him. A violates that vertical plane and any resulting contact is the fault of A. Coach, You make a very strong argument. You have looked at the word of the rules and have examined the intent of the rules. mick

Coach, how do YOU want this called? 1.) If your player is F, and 2.) if your player is B?

Same way regardless of whose player committed the foul - I really am very fair about this. 95% of the time or more, I am mad at my players for the fouls they committed rather than the refs. With most coaches, I know you will catch hell either way, but make the right call.

Coach, this how I'm calling it...
 

My previous posts outline my own guidelines that I will use when making this call. Now, will you be yelling at ME or your PLAYER??

Re: Coach, this how I'm calling it...
 

Casey,
Coach thinks that B violated F's space.
But he won't yell at you.
Too much class.
mick

You'll probably get a glare or a "what's up with that" look, if I am coaching F. I rarely verbalize my complaints to refs, especially on foul calls. If I am coaching B, I will probably laugh and tell my assistant we got away with one (but of course, from your perspective we did not!). I will always remain puzzled as to how B obtained airspace rights over F, unless the FAA sold 'em a license.

Yes, but...
 

He does, Mick, but just for kicks, I want HIM to say that he won't yell at me!!

INDY - You come from the land of every ref's favorite coach - surely I can never equal his standard for yelling at refs;) so whatever I do, by the Indiana standard it won't be a yell!

However, if I see you on the court and this happens, I'll be sure to scream OVER THE BACK REF as loud as I can!

Principal of Verticality.
 

NFHS R4-S44 and NCAA R4-S64 define the Principal of Verticality and both rules are identical. While the rule talks in terms of the defense, verticality applies equally to all players on the court. A player who has legally acquired a place on the court is entitled to that place and the space above that space all the way up to the ceiling.
Therefore if B1 places any part of his body into the space directly above A1 and then there is contact between A1 and B1, B1 is responsible for the contact. If B1 and go straight up and reach into A1's space and grab the rebound without any contact between him and A1 there has been no infraction of the rules, but if there is contact even has described in the original play then B1 is responsible for the contact and can be charged with a personal foul. And it should be remembered that if B1 has control of the ball when the contact occurs and you are going to call the foul, it has to be a player control foul on B1.

I agree with all those who said the foul is on B- principle of verticality prevails; however the no call would normally be the best since you expect a certain amount of contact when 2 players are going up hard to get the ball.

Re: Principal of Verticality.
 

Excellent point, and one that is obvious when stated, but I didn't think of it until you said it. It's such a bang-bang play, most probably wouldn't think PC, especially on a rebound.

Yes, and you know what coach...
 

Many of the HS coaches think that they are the second coming of said favorite coach! I don't mind a coach standing up and "chanting" the whole game as long as it isn't disrespectful or malicious. If he becomes a problem, I give him the "hand". If he goes over the limit, he gets a "T". My tolerance level is very high...maybe to my DIS-advantage.

I believe the coach does MUCH, MUCH more for his team if he's coaching rather than talking to the officials the whole game.

As you probably guessed, I don't yell at refs. Never quite understood the point. I will raise some issues, but I let them call the game. Actually, the best coaches I see (and I have yet to reach that status) tend to say very little to their players as well. You teach in practice - if you spend your game yelling, you obviously didn't teach enough before the game.

Players have a lot of "noise" in game, most of it visual, and if you yell the entire game, they are unlikely to hear and react to much of what you say. I have cut by half or 2/3 what I say to players during a game, and could still cut backmore . I am always amazed when I ask a player "didn't you hear me say _____" and they give me that blank stare. They no more can hear me than see the open player in the blocks or the double team that is just about to occur. If they do hear me, it can disrupt their thought process, they may not have time to react, etc. Let refs ref and players play, make your adjustments on the bench/ during TOs/ between quarters and you are really a coach.

For those of you who thought the foul would be on F (the player in front)... how are you going to call it when F has the BALL and is going up LATER than B's premature jump (due to the awesome head fake)with his hands and arms extended over F's vertical and F CAUSES the contact? I hope you call the foul on B. Then why not of the rebound fellas? Just curious.

Re: Yes, and you know what coach...
 

I actually saw this principal illustrated in vivid (livid?) color last Saturday. Whenever the coach was busy coaching, the team would get almost caught up, but as soon as he started screaming at the refs, they would fall behind. Why didn't the parents notice and point it out to him? I refrained from "coaching" him as I was pretty sure he wasn't going to be receptive!