Reach No Reach

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

I'd add that is has to be illegal contact.

Good point. Thanks. Welcome to the Mythbusters. You will soon receive your official Mythbuster identification card, and your official Mythbuster secret decoder ring.

A moving screen is not in and of itself a foul, illegal contact must occur for a foul to be called. If a blind screen is set on a stationary defender, the defender must be given one normal step to change direction and attempt to avoid contact. If a screen is set on a moving defender, the defender gets a minimum of one step and a maximum of two steps, depending on the speed and distance of the defender.

Reaching in is not a foul. There must be illegal contact to have a foul. The mere act of reaching in, by itself, is nothing. If illegal contact does occur, it’s probably a holding foul, an illegal use of hands foul, or a hand check foul. When a player, in order to stop the clock, does not make a legitimate play for the ball, holds, pushes or grabs away from the ball, or uses undue roughness, the foul is an intentional foul.

Over the back is not a foul. The term is nowhere to be found in any rulebook. There must be illegal contact to have a foul. A taller player may often be able to get a rebound over a shorter player, even if the shorter player has good rebounding position. If the shorter player is displaced, then a pushing foul must be called. A rebounding player, with an inside position, while boxing out, is not allowed to push back or displace an opponent, which is a pushing foul.

[Pantherdreams]

I will add to the comments above that we discuss this issue seemingly every year amongst our officials.

The officials who want this to be a call tend to be of three schools of incredibly random thought:

1 - Letting kids reach doesn't help them learn to play good defense witht their feet. By making the call they are apparently helping the kid learn how to play basketball.

2 - If they are out of position to see the entire play from all required angle (don't see arm behind the defender, screened out by bodies, etc) they refuse to believe that the play could have been made without contact so they call the foul.

3 - There is no contact on the reach but there is body contact or contact with the players back so the officials sees the defense as initiating contact and gaining an advantage they couldn't have without the contact.

We have debated this for hours. As mentioned previously some people are arrogant and just won't change.

[BillyMac]

Back in high school, we were taught to always reach up, not down. Coach told us that a referee was less likely to call a foul is we tried to make a steal with an upward flick or our hand, rather than a downward flick of our hand.

[Kelvin green]

Was that coach Naismith?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

Was that coach Naismith?

No. It was Coach Methuselah.

[shutupneff]

This is all kind of blowing my mind. I've always seen this play as usually legal and uncalled. I admit it can be tricky to get a good angle on the play to see any potential contact because the defender is suddenly changing the direction he's attacking from. However, there are really only two ways a foul can happen on the move: if the defender pushes/displaces the offensive player in the back with the off hand, or if the defender hits the offensive player's elbow while swiping for the ball. Ever since I've been reffing, if a defender attempts this move and I'm not in perfect position to see it, I assume it's legal unless the offensive player suddenly accelerates awkwardly or his dribbling hand shoots forward.

And, in my opinion, any ref who thinks that always calling it teaches the defender to play proper defense is a stuborn old fogie who deserves to be lightly mocked behind their back.

[JPaco54]

Originally Posted by KCRC

FWIW, back when and where I played, before I had ever read a rulebook, it was just understood that a reach around the dribbler from behind would almost always be called a foul, regardless of contact. I distinctly remember several officials, not just a couple, having told teammates, coaches or myself that "they can't see everything (2 man crews) and that if you reach around it will be assumed that a foul occurred." Players and coaches accepted and adjusted accordingly. This was 15 years ago in an era where play was a lot less physical.

My guess is that this idea or "intepretation" was taught to officials in some parts of the country, or maybe just my part of the state I grew up in, in the past. And some ideas, even bad ones, never completely die out. Not saying I agree, just that I understand the call that the original poster is referring to.

Thanks - you hit it right on.

[BBrules]

Originally Posted by KCRC

FWIW, back when and where I played, before I had ever read a rulebook, it was just understood that a reach around the dribbler from behind would almost always be called a foul, regardless of contact... This was 15 years ago in an era where play was a lot less physical.

I was taught the same thing along with the upward attack on the ball that was mentioned earlier. Frankly, I think play should still be a lot less physical and I guess the NFHS agrees since they have been making POE's for a couple of years now to clean up the post play especially. I don't know if the NCAA addresses the same thing or not, but if they do, then the guys officiating at the D3 game I watched a few days ago must not have read it. The post players looked like they should have been on a wrestling mat instead of a basketball court. One foul called on that post play in the 2nd half, none in the first. It went on the whole game. The only thing they didn't do was knee each other in the groin.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JPaco54

Is there a reason why some officials call this everytime? B1 made a great defensive play, he took advantage of his quickness. Am I not seeing something right here?

They buy into what they hear on TV and not what is in the rulebook. Rulebook knowledge comes with time and an effort. There are officials that do not understand or have not studied specific rules, but officiate by what they hear and what they think is illegal. Which is why you will hear some officials use the term even though nothing in the rulebook uses that kind of language.

Peace