Reach No Reach
 

Three times last night, defender, B1, guarding A1, as A1 would get a step on B1, B1 would reach around A1 and hit the ball forward, he made no contact with A1. This resulted in two turnovers. I called no fouls on these three attempts. A's coach yelling, reach reach...that's a foul! I did call a foul on B1 at another time when he did bump A1 and hit is forearm as he tried to reach around and hit the ball.

I have seen this called a foul many times. It is almost an automatic foul. If I don't see the contact then I should not call a foul, correct? 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?

Yeh, another coach arguing a call.

1) They are new, but arrogant, officials.
2) They are alums of the offensive team.

(Based on the description, you are calling it correctly.)

I'm hoping you are being rhetorical here.



I'm hoping you are exaggerating here.

"Coach, it's a fundamental principle of basketball that you cannot foul the ball."

Correct. You can't have personal foul without contact. "Reaching" isn't a foul. How else is the defense suppose to try and steal the ball from the ball handler?

Yes - "everytime" is too strong" like saying "always" when my teenagers whine. I just have seen it called multiple times this past week.

Let's add the word "never" to the list, too. :o

Next time you are talking basketball with your fellow officials bring up the subject of "reaching" fouls. Find out what they saw or what their reasoning is.

What did they signal? [scared of the answer]

My Two Cents ...
 

Reaching in is not a foul. There must be contact to have a foul. The mere act of reaching in, by itself, is nothing. If contact does occur, it’s either a holding foul or an illegal use of hands foul.

Also: Ball-Handler / Hand-Checking
Places both hands on a ball-handler, it is a foul. Continuously places a hand on the ball-handler, it is a foul.
Continuously jabs a hand or forearm on a ball-handler, it is a foul. Remember RSBQ. If the dribbler’s
Rhythm, Speed, Balance, or Quickness are affected, we should have a hand-checking foul.

Thanks all
 

Appreciate the feedback -good insight - thanks!

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

Rule 4-24-2: It is legal use of hands to reach to block or slap the ball controlled by a dribbler or a player throwing for goal or a player holding it and accidentally hitting the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball.

Back in the day
 

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.

When I started playing (more than 15 years ago), I was taught that reaching was dangerous because it could get called. I wasn't taught that it was a foul, but only that it might get called a foul if it looked bad.

Illegal ...
 

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.

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.

Back Then, Three Subjects: Huntin', Gruntin', And Cave Painting ...
 

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.

Was that coach Naismith?

He Coached For A Long, Long, Long, Long, Time ...
 

No. It was Coach Methuselah.

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.

Exactly
 

Thanks - you hit it right on.

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.

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