Box out or no call? (Video)

[Camron Rust]

Foul on white. He pushed the player towards the basket while the shot was up then undercut him when he tried to jump for the rebound by bending over and backing under the red player. It is borderline intentional (F1). No play on the ball at all and created a dangerous situation....a non-basketball play.

[La Rikardo]

For me, in order to call a foul on a player for undercutting an opponent, I need to see a player jumping mostly vertically and the other player moving into his opponent's space. This is not what happened here.

Red #32 jumped into White #42. White #42 ducked in an attempt to avoid being contacted. For me, Red #32 is responsible for any contact that may occur, but in this case I believe the contact was incidental. No foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

For me, in order to call a foul on a player for undercutting an opponent, I need to see a player jumping mostly vertically and the other player moving into his opponent's space. This is not what happened here.

Red #32 jumped into White #42. White #42 ducked in an attempt to avoid being contacted. For me, Red #32 is responsible for any contact that may occur, but in this case I believe the contact was incidental. No foul.

For me, to call a foul on a player for undercutting, I need to see the opponent get undercut. Red may not be completely vertical in a labratory, but it's close enough in nature. I'm certainly not going to let white get away with the push and then the undercut.

I'm with Camron on this, I'd consider, but not likely go with, an intentional foul. White's only intent here is to undercut red.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Adam

For me, to call a foul on a player for undercutting, I need to see the opponent get undercut. Red may not be completely vertical in a labratory, but it's close enough in nature. I'm certainly not going to let white get away with the push and then the undercut.

I'm with Camron on this, I'd consider, but not likely go with, an intentional foul. White's only intent here is to undercut red.

I would not consider going intentional here but agree on everything else.

This is a clear undercut and illegal displacement here. I dont understand why we would require a player to jump perfectly straight when another player is illegally taking his entire lower body out from under him.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I would not consider going intentional here but agree on everything else.

This is a clear undercut and illegal displacement here. I dont understand why we would require a player to jump perfectly straight when another player is illegally taking his entire lower body out from under him.

I think if he did it again, I'd go with the intentional.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think if he did it again, I'd go with the intentional.

I can go along with that.

Its clearly a foul but I see it more as a poorly executed, and illegal, attempt to box out. I don't see it as the nefarious act you and Cameron are suggesting.

[deecee]

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?"

[Eastshire]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I can go along with that.

Its clearly a foul but I see it more as a poorly executed, and illegal, attempt to box out. I don't see it as the nefarious act you and Cameron are suggesting.

Bonus points for using "nefarious" in a sentence.

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

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I can go along with that.

Its clearly a foul but I see it more as a poorly executed, and illegal, attempt to box out. I don't see it as the nefarious act you and Cameron are suggesting.

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.

[APG]

I've got a foul for an undercut on white.

What I would have liked to have seen is the positioning of the officials in the play and see if they were in proper position to see this rebounding action. This seems like it'd be a pretty easy get for the slot to get.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

For me, in order to call a foul on a player for undercutting an opponent, I need to see a player jumping mostly vertically and the other player moving into his opponent's space. This is not what happened here.

Red #32 jumped into White #42. White #42 ducked in an attempt to avoid being contacted. For me, Red #32 is responsible for any contact that may occur, but in this case I believe the contact was incidental. No foul.

#42 bent over then proceeded to back himself underneath #32. That is a bush league play at best. He wasn't avoiding contact, he was being a troublemaker.

[BigCat]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

figured that