Rebounding Contact (video)

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

we as officials need to get away from the idea that the L cannot call rebounding fouls. The L should have been the main person to make this call.

+1,000

The lead is eight feet away from obvious, heavy contact. He's not straightlined and is looking right at it, as evidenced by the last :10 of the video which reveal his position and body orientation. Outright brain cramp on the part of L on this play.

But I also agree with those wanting T to close and help - and with the idea that C is in horrible position to save the crew on an obvious foul.

[Camron Rust]

This may have been a case of "Possession Consequence" carried too far.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

Bingo! We train our new guys (and all the old guys that want to keep their place on the pecking order) to take a "step in" on a shot (so even if they don't actually take a "step in"...at least they are not "bailing out")

...also, the "C" or "T", depending on 2 or 3 Whistle crew...should take a step in on the last Free Throw. The next time you watch a game...see how many officials actually use this mechanic.

I do but it took me a good 1 and a half to 2 whole seasons focusing on it every game to get it down so that I do it 95% of the time. The times I don't are when I get distracted by something weird or a coach or something else. Point is: it can be a hard habit to make or break but is doable and I think, as you all have mentioned very important to officiate the here and now and not the what might be.

[swerv17]

Positioning fundamentals! A high center and too far off the floor IMO, and the L should definitely be backing out as the shot goes up. L should have primary call on this play with T having secondary. If C is in the correct position, and neither the L or T has a whistle, than a cadence whistle from the C. That Blue player got rocked!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This may have been a case of "Possession Consequence" carried too far.

Back when I was a young official, with dark hair, this was a common unwritten philosophy among veteran officials here in my little corner of the Constitution State, i.e., "blue fouls white going for a rebound, but the ball immediately goes out of bounds off blue, just give it to white for an inbounds, no harm, no change of possession, no foul". I almost got caught up in this philosophy, but I've seen the light, and now just call the game like I'm supposed to, especially with every single play being filmed by dozens of cell phones in the bleachers. If it's a real foul, I call it. If it isn't, I don't call it, and just award the ball out of bounds for a throw in. The foul, or no foul, is called like I would if the ball never went out of bounds. The ball going out of bounds, off either blue, or off white, isn't part of the equation.

Some might still use this philosophy, so check your local listings in Rome.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Back when I was a young official, with dark hair, this was a common unwritten philosophy among veteran officials here in my little corner of the Constitution State, i.e., "blue fouls white going for a rebound, but the ball immediately goes out of bounds off blue, just give it to white for an inbounds, no harm, no change of possession, no foul". I almost got caught up in this philosophy, but I've seen the light, and now just call the game like I'm supposed to, especially with every single play being filmed by dozens of cell phones in the bleachers. If it's a real foul, I call it. If it isn't, I don't call it, and just award the ball out of bounds for a throw in. The foul, or no foul, is called like I would if the ball never went out of bounds. The ball going out of bounds, off either blue, or off white, isn't part of the equation.

Some might still use this philosophy, so check your local listings in Rome.

We use it here, but as Camron noted, this would be taking it too far. It's used on contact that is close to the edge between illegal and incidental. If A1 bumps into B1 and displaces him slightly, but B1 maintains control of the ball, there's really no foul to call (and most coaches here accept that).

If, however, A1 knocks B1 to the floor while A2 comes in to pick up the loose ball, that should be a foul. This is how you end up with extra-curricular activity later in the game, IMO.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

... extra-curricular activity ...

Adam: I just love your funny little euphemisms.