Under the front -PART 2

[mlancast]

Here's an extension of the previous post that recently happened in my game....
A1 takes a shot. B1 is standing in the lane just under the basket. On the miss, A2 roars over the free throw line and goes up for a massive rebound/dunk. After A2 leaves the floor (Just beyond the charity stripe), B1 takes a couple of steps backwards to get into position to rebound. This causes A2 to make contact with B1 as he attempts the dunk (which is missed -due to the contact?)
A block is called on B1. Needless to say, B's coach goes nuts claiming it should have "over the back" on A2 since he did not go staight up and down. A bang-bang play...
Curious on what you think???????

[Brian Watson]

I would be inclined to call the foul on A. Eventhough B backed up, A jumped into him. He is not an airborne shooter so I see no reason to bail him out.

[Gibby]

A couple factors are involved here. I can't give an automatic foul on A1 because he makes an incredible athletic play! first of all B1 has moved from his original position after A1 has left the floor(proof enough). Secondly did B1 make an attempt to jump and rebound the ball or did he just stay on the floor and try and block out? No attenpt to jump he gets no special treatment from me! Third, how far from the basket was he? Under? I think your call was correct!

[Gary Brendemuehl]

Originally posted by Gibby
A couple factors are involved here. I can't give an automatic foul on A1 because he makes an incredible athletic play! first of all B1 has moved from his original position after A1 has left the floor(proof enough). Secondly did B1 make an attempt to jump and rebound the ball or did he just stay on the floor and try and block out? No attenpt to jump he gets no special treatment from me! Third, how far from the basket was he? Under? I think your call was correct!

Under NF rules I don't understand why the player's position relative to the basket or whether he jumps or blocks out
are factors in making the call.

[Indy_Ref]

Originally posted by mlancast
Here's an extension of the previous post that recently happened in my game....
A1 takes a shot. B1 is standing in the lane just under the basket. On the miss, A2 roars over the free throw line and goes up for a massive rebound/dunk. After A2 leaves the floor (Just beyond the charity stripe), B1 takes a couple of steps backwards to get into position to rebound. This causes A2 to make contact with B1 as he attempts the dunk (which is missed -due to the contact?)
A block is called on B1. Needless to say, B's coach goes nuts claiming it should have "over the back" on A2 since he did not go staight up and down. A bang-bang play...
Curious on what you think???????

Great athleticism there! However, if B1 was in legal position to rebound, even if he moves a bit to "go get the ball" after the miss (I say either at a forward, forward-left, forward-right, or straight up angle), I've got pushing on A2 for "over the back". IF, however, B1 does NOT go straight up (let's say he jumps to the back-left, the back-right, or at a backward incline or angle) and fouls A2 during the attempted dunk, I've got either an illegal use of hands ("a hack"), a push, or a blocking foul on B1 depending on how it looks.

Whoever said this job was easy????

[Edited by Indy_Ref on Jan 5th, 2001 at 07:54 AM]

[BigDave]

As he went for the "massive rebound/dunk", he is just another player, not a shooter. If B is in position and is hammered by A2 *tweet* we have a foul, Boys.

And the reason he missed...

...there's only one Michael Jordan.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by mlancast
After A2 leaves the floor (Just beyond the charity stripe), B1 takes a couple of steps backwards to get into position to rebound. This causes A2 to make contact with B1 as he attempts the dunk (which is missed -due to the contact?)

This is a clear block. A2 jumped, B1 moved backwards. Legal guarding position was not established before A1 left floor. 4-23-5d. There is no requirement that A2 be an airborne shooter - 4-23-5 applies to guarding a moving opponent without the ball and d says that position must be established before opponent leaves the floor. This seems like a no brainer to me.

[Gary Brendemuehl]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

This is a clear block. A2 jumped, B1 moved backwards. Legal guarding position was not established before A1 left floor. 4-23-5d. There is no requirement that A2 be an airborne shooter - 4-23-5 applies to guarding a moving opponent without the ball and d says that position must be established before opponent leaves the floor. This seems like a no brainer to me.

Is it? Is B1 guarding A2 or is this just two players going after a ball that is not in team control by either team?

Let me change the scenario slightly and then tell me what you would call.

B1 is guarding A1. A1 tries to make a pass to a cutter going to the basket. B1 extends his arm and deflects the pass almost 20' straight up ( just behind B1). A2 sees the deflection and sprints to the ball and jumps from about 12' feet away to catch the ball. B1 can't immediately locate the ball and when he does he takes one step back (after A2 has left the floor) to catch the ball. A2 lands on top of B1.

Your call is?

A block on B1? Because he needs to obtain legal guarding postion on A2 before he can attempt to catch a loose ball?

[Hawks Coach]

No problem with block, especially if it is clear that B moved into a spot where A2 could have come down without contact. A2 reacted and went after ball, and landed in a spot that was open when he left the floor. I think that the intent of these rules is to prevent player (B) from moving into a previously open spot where an airborne player (A) is going to land and thereby drawing a foul on A (or causing A to travel, lose ball, get injured, etc.) It's not A's fault that B did not react as quick tpo the loose ball situation. Probably half the fouls in games result from one player moving or reacting quicker than the other, with the other player than making a bad (or strategic) decision resulting in illegal contact. I see this as an extreme case, but no different.

[Peter Devana]

It is a no brainer- it's a rebounding foul not a guarding situation and its over the back contact.

[Hawks Coach]

What reference can you provide that says B can move under airborne A after A has left the ground and draw a foul on A? Is there a special rebounding rule that allows B to do things that under any other situation are illegal? Is there an advantage given to B because B didn't try to establish legal guarding position, when clearly in any situation where B is attempting to establish a guarding position B cannot move under an already airborne A?

If you want a layman's term for it, rather than over the back, I see this as B undercutting A. If there is a concept in anyone's head about over the back, it applies to B already being in postion and A violating B's vertical plane AND making illegal contact (technically a push). When B moved under airborne A, B lost any right to the principle of verticality. Any contact is the fault of B, unless I am missing something in the rules here.