I think you are either (a) a former point guard who has never been undercut on a rebound or (b) a really nice guy who can't see the evil in others.

I don't think so. If this was a cross into the PA in a soccer game, I've got an easy foul on white, too. (And likely a piece of plastic to go with it -- but a bit hard to precisely translate the play to soccer.)

The soccer connection may certainly have something to do with our shared minority opinion, because I also have a hard time seeing it any way other than this. In soccer, one of the ten fouls punishable by a direct free kick (or penalty kick, if committed in the player's penalty area), is when a player jumps at an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless, or with excessive force. This foul is called occasionally when a player jumps to head the ball and jumps with some degree of horizontal velocity into an opponent, usually in a careless manner. If that opponent does not also jump to challenge for the ball, he'll often duck in an effort to avoid contact. I usually don't see this as a "dirty" play, I just see it as the player making an effort to protect himself.

That's the sort of thing I see here. Perhaps the player in white was trying to box out and instead he displaced an airborne opponent. But, right or wrong, that's not my first reaction to seeing a play like this. If the airborne player is jumping at an opponent (by which I mean the airborne player has some noticeable degree of horizontal velocity in addition to trying to jump straight up) and the opponent makes some sort of motion that looks to me like he's protecting himself, my instinct is to give that player the benefit of the doubt.

I recognize that when I'm one of very few here who would not call a foul while some other experienced officials are saying this is borderline intentional, I might need to adjust my perception on a play like this.

Beyond Eastshire and so cal lurker, I know there are at least two other officials here with soccer experience. AremRed already weighed in and had a foul on the player in white. Now I'm curious to see what Nevadaref thinks.

As for a soccer equivalent.....consider a cross or corner kick (as you started to suggest) where the defender doesn't try to go up for a header with the offensive player but, instead, runs through his legs as the offensive player is peaking and meeting the ball with his head.

The jumping player only jumped a little away from the basket and towards the opponent because he had been pushed to a location that was more under the rim. No player goes to that location on their own for rebounding. That is the first foul.

Then, if you watch the white players feet after he bends over, that tells you everything you need to know. If he was protecting himself, he would be stepping away, not further under the person that was in the air. Instead, he bent over and continued to drive himself further under the airborne player, intending to undercut the player in the air. That is what makes it borderline intentional. He made no play on the ball and created contact that was dangerous.

I have also done a bit of soccer...albeit not nearly as long as basketball and not nearly at the same level.

Looking at the video again, I see that I didn't originally notice that the initial contact occurred before the player in red jumped. I have changed my mind about this play and I fully agree with your comments.

Whew. I was gonna say that you might need to re-evaluate how you see undercutting on the soccer field!!

I agree the first foul on white for pushing red under the basket.

However, once there, red fouls white by jumping back into him.

Yes, after red lands on white's back, white gives him a bit of a backside but if we're concentrating only on the jumping action and not the initial push, red is still fouling first by not jumping vertically.

Red jumps back into white because if he would have jumped straight up he's nowhere near enough to the ball to have any chance at rebounding.

I'm standing by a foul on white on the the jump.

Red has no requirement to jump vertically unless white is stationary (he's not). If both red and white had jumped up, they would met from equally favorable positions...no foul at all. Red only lands on white's back because white moved into/under red and took reds legs out from under him.

Citiation? If red had jumped straight up and white jumped into his back would that have been legal since red was moving?

If they both jumped straight, agreed. If red jumped as he did in the video and white jumped straight, I have a foul on red.

I strongly disagree. Red jumps to the ball which is behind white. He tries to jump through white which causes him to land on white's shoulders. Red bridges himself here.

Go around, not through. Red goes through here.

Relatively good guesses.

I am a former PG and just about everyone, other than my wife, considers me a pretty nice guy.

But I have been undercut playing basketball, more than once. And my day job involves working on federal policy in DC. I see the evil in others on a daily basis. I've also seen lots of dirty plays and called my share of intentional fouls over the years.

On this play though, I don't see the kid intentionally trying to undercut, injure, or engage in dangerous play. And I don't see excessive contact or any of the elements of an intentional foul.

Hell, some people don't even think it was a foul on white at all. I think its a clear foul but intentional would not even enter my thought process on this one.

Not what I meant....I was referring to horizontal movement, not jumping straight up.
If that was all that white did, then I'd agree. But that isn't what he did.
You really need to watch that video again.

The only reason that ball is behind white is that the white player kept bumping and shoving the red player farther and farther under the basket while the shot was in the air. White then finishes it off with a dirty move of submarining red by bending over and continuing to move under him. There is nothing acceptable about that.

Even if the first shove didn't occur, I'm still calling a foul on white. They were both moving towards each other. White made no play on the ball. His only action was to undercut red. Whether red had jumped towards him or not is irrelevant in this play. If white had, instead, tried to go up for the ball, then yes, maybe foul on red. But, again, whites only action was to take reds legs out from under him....and that would have still happened even if red had jumped perfectly straight.

No way I'm penalizing red for his actions after being displaced from the spot he had earned or when his opponents only action is to take out his legs.

I think we're agreed in principle and we're just seeing the sequence different (although I don't think white has to make a play to draw a foul, he merely needs to hold his ground prior to being contacted by red).

I've watched the video about 20 times now and I still don't see white bridging red until white is hit in the shoulder by red's butt. If red jumps straight up, he doesn't get bridged but when you bridge yourself, it's a foul on you.