Box out or no call? (Video)

[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!!

[Eastshire]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Red has no requirement to jump vertically unless white is stationary (he's not).

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

If both red and white had jumped up, they would met from equally favorable positions...no foul at all.

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.

Red only lands on white's back because white moved into/under red and took reds legs out from under him.

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.