Rebounding Contact (video)

[JRutledge]

The main thing I have a problem with mechanically is that both officials go up for a 3 point shot (signal). That tells me either both are watching the ball or likely watching the same thing. Also the C is very high on this play and should have closed down. Almost the entire purpose to have a C is so that another official is there to rule on rebounding. On the other hand, I do not have as much problem for when the T left as he stayed until it was evident that the rebound was mostly over. That being if the T stayed a little longer he might have seen this play better and helped. But this is the reason I feel 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.

Peace

[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.

[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.