Box out or no call? (Video)

[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.

[rockyroad]

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.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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'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)?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rooster

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.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

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...

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Rooster

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)?

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).

[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.)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

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.)

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.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

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.

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.

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

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.

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

[La Rikardo]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

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!!