Reach and other stuff

[OverAndBack]

Did six games yesterday and boy are my arms tired.

Anyway, one of the things I heard many times yesterday from different coaches was "That's reaching in!" (which seems to rank second to "That's over the back!" in frequency).

Now, I know my brothers and sisters here will give me the straight story, but I was taught that the "reach" is a misnomer - it can be a hold if the defensive player impedes the progress of the offensive player, but if the arm goes in towards the ball, the offensive player continues unimpeded and the arm either continues along with the offensive player or drops, it's not a hold. Yet you'll hear coaches call for the reach all the time. Have I been correctly taught? That the simple act of "reaching in" to the offensive player's torso space isn't a foul unless it impedes their progress?

Along those lines, I was also taught there's no "over the back" strictly speaking - it can be a push from behind, but just going over the top of someone to get a ball may not be a foul (I've seen it where there's no contact, or negligible contact) - the simple act of jumping higher and reaching over the top of the other player's space isn't necessarily a foul (and as far as I know there isn't an "over the back" mechanic or a foul with that name, correct?).

One last thing - had a coach yell at me because I didn't call an illegal pick for a screen set behind a player - the player being screened had the screener on her back. Illegal?

Yes, I'm going to read the rulebook, I just like hearing it in plain English from the folks here. Thanks.

[eventnyc]

Originally posted by OverAndBack
Did six games yesterday and boy are my arms tired.

Anyway, one of the things I heard many times yesterday from different coaches was "That's reaching in!" (which seems to rank second to "That's over the back!" in frequency).

Have I been correctly taught? That the simple act of "reaching in" to the offensive player's torso space isn't a foul unless it impedes their progress?

Along those lines, I was also taught there's no "over the back" strictly speaking - it can be a push from behind, but just going over the top of someone to get a ball may not be a foul (I've seen it where there's no contact, or negligible contact) - the simple act of jumping higher and reaching over the top of the other player's space isn't necessarily a foul (and as far as I know there isn't an "over the back" mechanic or a foul with that name, correct?).

One last thing - had a coach yell at me because I didn't call an illegal pick for a screen set behind a player - the player being screened had the screener on her back. Illegal?

Yes, I'm going to read the rulebook, I just like hearing it in plain English from the folks here. Thanks.

Reaching In: The fact that a player "reaches in" has no significance without contact. It is also a play were many officials will determine whether there was advantage/disadvantage. Did the contact result in an advantage to the defender (ball comes loose, etc.)?

Over the back: Report a "push" with arms extended. Again, this foul involves "contact" and advantage/disadvantage. As you have probably heard before, "don't penalize height."

Screening: When screening a stationary opponent from the front or side, the screener may be anywhere short of contact.When screening a stationary opponent from behind, the screener must allow the opponent one normal step backward without contact.

[ChrisSportsFan]

6 games of rec ball, you definately have a case of; volunteer-parents-as-coaches-itas.

So long as we do those games, we'll continue to be strickened with this illness. The only remedy is to either stop accepting those games or wear an Ipod Shuffler when you work.

[OverAndBack]

Originally posted by eventnyc
It is also a play were many officials will determine whether there was advantage/disadvantage. Did the contact result in an advantage to the defender (ball comes loose, etc.)?

Is it a foul if the ball comes loose? If there's a reach, they poke the ball free, no real contact (just intrusion into the personal space of the offensive player), it's not a foul, correct?

[ChrisSportsFan]

No contact= no foul and just because something looks ugly, does not make it a foul. Players do not have a protected bubble of space around them.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by ChrisSportsFan
No contact= no foul and just because something looks ugly, does not make it a foul. Players do not have a protected bubble of space around them.

What you never heard about MTD's cylinder of verticality?

Had a situation yesterday where A1 was continually dribbling up the sideline from back to frontcourt and the defenders were "reaching in" to try to stop him and, on occassion would slightly bump him. However, in each instance, he dribbled through and past the defense and continued to the basket for a shot and/ or a lay up.

The coach, in a non-confrontational manner, asked me why I was not calling this. I told him that I did not feel the contact impeded his player, since in each instance, the defender actually lost ground by trying to reach and, if he bumps him and causes him to lose control, I would call the foul. He seemed surprised at the explanation, yet kind of gave me one of those "makes sense" expressions and sat down.

It's a good feeling when you can logically explain why and what you are doing and an even better feeling of satisfaction when the coach is speechless, which is rare.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by MPLAHE
Had a situation yesterday where A1 was continually dribbling up the sideline from back to frontcourt and the defenders were "reaching in" to try to stop him and, on occassion would slightly bump him. However, in each instance, he dribbled through and past the defense and continued to the basket for a shot and/ or a lay up.

The coach, in a non-confrontational manner, asked me why I was not calling this. I told him that I did not feel the contact impeded his player, since in each instance, the defender actually lost ground by trying to reach and, if he bumps him and causes him to lose control, I would call the foul. He seemed surprised at the explanation, yet kind of gave me one of those "makes sense" expressions and sat down.

It's a good feeling when you can logically explain why and what you are doing and an even better feeling of satisfaction when the coach is speechless, which is rare.

Had that happen once.

Coach says," That's a foul."

I said, "No, that's a lay up."

He looked confused and during the next timeout I told him, "The contact did not hinder your player and if I call that incidental contact a foul, I'm taking 2 points away from your player."

He went, "Aah, now I get it."

[eventnyc]

Originally posted by OverAndBack

Is it a foul if the ball comes loose? If there's a reach, they poke the ball free, no real contact (just intrusion into the personal space of the offensive player), it's not a foul, correct?

No arguement here O&B! I did say CONTACT, didn't I?

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by OverAndBack
Is it a foul if the ball comes loose? If there's a reach, they poke the ball free, no real contact (just intrusion into the personal space of the offensive player), it's not a foul, correct?

That is for you to decide. The ball coming loose is not the determining factor in making a call. You have to be able to see if the player was bumped and if the player was bumped by another player violating their vertical space (4-44). You do not want to just call slight contact when one player is bigger and the other is significantly smaller and basic physics comes into play. Sometimes a player losing the ball is by their own lack of ability. This is where judgment comes in. It is really hard to explain here without seeing the play in detail. There are times when there is a lot of contact and there should not be a foul. There are other times where contact is slight and you should call a foul.

Peace

[OverAndBack]

I thought so. This has been helpful, thanks. I didn't hear one today and there was some reach/bump where it was a foul and I called it.