easy foul on white. This is also where white and his coach will cry "oh he was boxing out" and another classic "what else is he supposed to do?"

I'm with La Rikardo here and I wonder if it's our soccer officiating that's causing us to see this differently.

Red jumps back and over white. White doesn't move under red until red's butt lands on his shoulder. There is no significant movement by white after the jump and before he is contacted by red.

Before reading the rest of the comments I would have said it's an easy foul on red.

He can do whatever he wants, coach, but that contact is a foul.

I wouldn't call it intentional, but I wouldn't try to talk a partner out of an intentional foul here either.

To me the foul takes place before the red player ever jumps. He is displaced and backed down until he is almost under the rim. Yes the white player undercuts him also, but the displacement came before that ever happened.

I see white player fronting the post. Shot goes up and he starts pushing red under the basket as Camron says. It's easier to shove him under basket than get around in front of him. White keeps doing it, Red resists. White bends to push more and does. Red jumps for ball...white keeps pushing but no resistance. Undercut. Clearly a foul on white and ends up dangerous.

Usually involves shorter v taller player. Clearly foul but i don't see intentional…but, I didn't see the rest of the game.

When I first saw this play, I thought it was a no-call. I thought that the white player was just staying under the guy jumping on top of him. Now I am not so sure. I have not been able to see this play but only look on memory for the most part. Well now I think this was a foul. I looked at this game just to see that play as I was reviewing some comments about this game. Glad I saw this play again. My initial opinion has changed.

And no, the game was not particularly rough, but there were a lot of fouls called in this game. I will let that stand there. ;)

Peace

Bonus points for using "nefarious" in a sentence.

This isn't a hill I'd die on, to be honest.

figured that:)

This pretty much sums up what I was thinking. First time (first few times actually) viewing I thought no call, I thought the red player jumped up and over, and let to his own fall. While I still think that is partially true, I can now see white continuing to back into red's initial spot, which is why I'd have a foul. I still don't think it's as obviously clear cut as others though

I'm in this camp. Now when would you blow the whistle? As the shot's in the air or after the ball hits the rim (possession consequence)?

I'm working on delaying my whistle. Did so on a rebounding foul this past weekend. Was not an undercut, but the same concept.

Personally, I will wait to see if there is a possession consequence - or, in other words, and advantage gained by the white player. So my whistle would have gone off before the red player jumped (assuming I even saw this and wasn't looking to see who was in the stands or something stupid like that).

Did so too in a game last week however my delayed whistle might have been too delayed. Coach was hollering (not that I give a rat's rear end...) about already having the ball and moving up the court...

I will wait as long as seeing whether or not the shot is going in...once it is clearly missed, I put a whistle on it.

+1

I see White #45, not #42. He is not boxing out. Boxing out is screening, not displacing, and #45 started displacing just after the release. I'm waiting to see where the rebound is going, and it clearly affected the play.

#45 White, pushing.