Reach No Reach

[JPaco54]

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?

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by JPaco54

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JPaco54

Is there a reason why some officials call this everytime?

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

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JPaco54

...
If I don't see the contact then I should not call a foul, correct?

I'm hoping you are being rhetorical here.

Originally Posted by JPaco54

...Is there a reason why some officials call this everytime?

I'm hoping you are exaggerating here.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by JPaco54

A's coach yelling, reach reach...that's a foul!

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

[APG]

Originally Posted by JPaco54

If I don't see the contact then I should not call a foul, correct?

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?

[JPaco54]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm hoping you are being rhetorical here.


Yes


I'm hoping you are exaggerating here.

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

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by JPaco54

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JPaco54

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

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JPaco54

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

What did they signal? [scared of the answer]

[BillyMac]

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.

[JPaco54]

Appreciate the feedback -good insight - thanks!

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.

[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.

[Adam]

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.