Box out or no call? (Video)

[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?"

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by deecee

"what else is he supposed to do?"

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.

[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.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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

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.)

[La Rikardo]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

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.

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.

[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.