Two Rules Questions

[Nrrrrvous]

I have two separate questions about rules/fouls that I am seeing a lot these days(not just in Duke games) - just looking for my own personal knowledge and other's opinions.

1) The offensive post player gets the ball a couple/few feet out of the lane but in the low post. The defender is tight on him between him and the basket. The offensive player dribbles and uses his posterior (gotta get past the wankerizer) to move the defender farther and farther until just under the basket. The last bump seems to get the defender off balance a bit and the offensive player turns and puts up a very close shot. It seems to me that refs are allowing the offensive player to move the defender back without calling a foul. Now if he turns sideways and does the same thing with his shoulder, they will call an offensive foul, but not if he uses his rear end. Now, if the defender flops backwards, the refs tend to call it one way or the other but not if the defender stays upright and tries to continue guarding.

Is this a legal move? Does the defender just need to be strong enough to keep him from moving him back?

2) Rebound - a much taller player reaches over a shorter player, doesn't touch them, and grabs a rebound. I've seen this several times being called an "over the back" foul. I thought, and I certainly could be mistaken, that you had to physically touch the other player or raise yourself over them somehow using their body (climbing their back). Am I wrong on this?

Thanks in advance.

[ClemmonsDevil]

I have two separate questions about rules/fouls that I am seeing a lot these days(not just in Duke games) - just looking for my own personal knowledge and other's opinions.

1) The offensive post player gets the ball a couple/few feet out of the lane but in the low post. The defender is tight on him between him and the basket. The offensive player dribbles and uses his posterior (gotta get past the wankerizer) to move the defender farther and farther until just under the basket. The last bump seems to get the defender off balance a bit and the offensive player turns and puts up a very close shot. It seems to me that refs are allowing the offensive player to move the defender back without calling a foul. Now if he turns sideways and does the same thing with his shoulder, they will call an offensive foul, but not if he uses his rear end. Now, if the defender flops backwards, the refs tend to call it one way or the other but not if the defender stays upright and tries to continue guarding.

Is this a legal move? Does the defender just need to be strong enough to keep him from moving him back?

2) Rebound - a much taller player reaches over a shorter player, doesn't touch them, and grabs a rebound. I've seen this several times being called an "over the back" foul. I thought, and I certainly could be mistaken, that you had to physically touch the other player or raise yourself over them somehow using their body (climbing their back). Am I wrong on this?

Thanks in advance.

1. Is a foul. Not up for debate, if seldom whistled.
2. You have to make contact. There is no cylinder if no one has the ball.

[rsvman]

If the defender flails and falls down, they generally but not always call it a foul. Otherwise, the defender has to just stand his ground.

Over the back implies contact, yes. Sometimes the refs can't believe that the blocked-out player is tall enough/can jump high enough/or has arms long enough to get the rebound without contacting the other player, so they assume contact that didn't exist.

[Bob Green]

Scenario number two is not a foul.

[Phredd3]

If the defender flails and falls down, they generally but not always call it a foul. Otherwise, the defender has to just stand his ground.

I have, however, seen plenty of these where the defender flails and falls down and there is no call. I've even occasionally seen the offensive player come down and stumble on the prone player, and it is the prone player who has gotten called for the foul. It is the referees judgment how much contact is legal or not legal, and tolerance is traditionally much higher in the post than on the perimeter.

[-jk]

Contact alone is not a foul; contact must confer an advantage to be a foul. If the defender can hold his position, the first scenario becomes a charge. An offensive player's footwork can get the defender off balance, leading to a block. Really, though, players backing their defenders down is a time-honored tradition at all levels of basketball.

Reaching over someone without touching them should never be called a foul. It's just a height advantage.

-jk

[camion]

Contact alone is not a foul; contact must confer an advantage to be a foul. If the defender can hold his position, the first scenario becomes a charge. An offensive player's footwork can get the defender off balance, leading to a block. Really, though, players backing their defenders down is a time-honored tradition at all levels of basketball.

Reaching over someone without touching them should never be called a foul. It's just a height advantage.

-jk

As someone who is vertically challenged I say that it is foul, whether or not it is a foul.

[JetpackJesus]

For the first scenario, a key question for the officials also is whether the offensive player initiated the contact. The times you see it called an offensive foul are often the times there is separation between the defender and the offensive player when he begins the backdown. If the offensive player is bodied up by the defender, then a typical backdown is unlikely to result in an offensive foul.

[rasputin]

I have heard intelligent announcers (which leaves Cory Alexander off the list) say that it should be called "on the back," which implies contact, instead of "over the back," which doesn't.

[budwom]

On a slightly different tack, Clawson of Wake is angry about how Pitt QB Pickett faked a slide and then ran for a long TD...I think he has a point that doing so needs to be penalized.

[Bluedog]

On a slightly different tack, Clawson of Wake is angry about how Pitt QB Pickett faked a slide and then ran for a long TD...I think he has a point that doing so needs to be penalized.

The rules already state that a runner is down when they START in the sliding motion. So, that theoretically should cover it but I guess he didn't start it in the opinion of the officials. In post-game interviews, it sounds like his intent WAS to slide, but then when he saw the defenders stop and he had decent separation, he changed his mind and didn't slide and continued running. It was certainly a fakeout though, but the rules seem like they should cover it although perhaps they can put even more clarifying language.

As to these two basketball rules, I think we've covered what the actual rules are, but Nrrrrvous makes a good point that they are NOT consistently officiated/called. They can be subjective to an extent. I would argue that if a defensive rebounder goes over a guy but the guy in front then lifts up his arms to make contact with the guy behind him (arm to arm contact) it should NOT be a foul call, but it often IS called over the back because there was contact and they give the guy in position the benefit of the doubt.

[JasonEvans]

On a slightly different tack, Clawson of Wake is angry about how Pitt QB Pickett faked a slide and then ran for a long TD...I think he has a point that doing so needs to be penalized.

This should 100% be a penalty.



The D has been told to ease up so as not to hurt the QB. We should not let QBs take advantage of that. Picket is lucky no one on Wake took a 15-yard penalty later in the game just to take him out. I ordinarily abhor late hits, but I would have completely understood if one of the Wake defenders had decided to teach him a lesson about that play.

[BigWayne]

As someone who is vertically challenged I say that it is foul, whether or not it is a foul.

There are a lot of refs that agree with you or are too lazy to call it correctly. Many calls are called by refs guessing/assuming there is a foul based on motions they can see. This call and "reaching in" get the same guessing treatment all the time.

"Over the back" as bad announcers like Billy Packer popularized is called incorrectly all of the time. I was never surprised to see this because I learned this when I was ten years old and much taller than a lot of opponents in youth league basketball. I also learned at that time that refs generally are watching activity above the waist and you can do a lot with your rear end without getting called, especially when boxing out for rebounds.

[Nrrrrvous]

Thanks for all the responses. Clear as mud now. Just kidding. It seems that scenario 1 is more debatable, some call it an offensive foul, some say it's just basketball. I'm reminded of Lebron's "bully-ball" phase a few years ago where he would get a much smaller defender on him way out past the foul line and just back him all the way down to the basket. Legal? Maybe. Pretty/fun/entertaining basketball? Nope.

#2 seems to be a bit more clear-cut, just I've been seeing it called a lot recently when it shouldn't be. Especially when Mark get's boxed out by a 6'3" guy.

Thanks again!

Oh and BTW, I agree with all who said that Pickett should not be allowed to do that. I would have called him down at the spot of the "fake" slide.

[DukieInBrasil]

The announcers brought this up during a Duke game this year, and it also happened during the buzzer-beating upset making shot vs. Kansas but neither time was it called: that if the net is touched during the shot (?) or while the ball is on the rim, then goaltending can be called. Has anyone ever seen that called? and If that shot vs Kansas hadn't gone down, would it have been eligible for said goaltending violation?

[Bluedog]

The announcers brought this up during a Duke game this year, and it also happened during the buzzer-beating upset making shot vs. Kansas but neither time was it called: that if the net is touched during the shot (?) or while the ball is on the rim, then goaltending can be called. Has anyone ever seen that called? and If that shot vs Kansas hadn't gone down, would it have been eligible for said goaltending violation?

I can't find the NCAA rulebook, but in the NBA, no, just touching the net is not enough for a goaltend. It has to actually impact & move the ball/rim while the ball is ON the rim/going through the net:

"A Player Shall Not: Vibrate the rim, net or backboard so as to cause the ball to make an unnatural bounce, or bend or move the rim to an off-center position when the ball is touching the ring or passing through."

And you cannot touch the net while the ball is already IN the net:

"A Player Shall Not: Touch the rim, net or ball while the ball is in the net, preventing it from clearing the basket."

https://official.nba.com/rule-no-11-...e-goaltending/

Edit: NCAA rulebook here:
http://ncaambb.arbitersports.com/gro...files/br15.pdf

Basket interference covered on pages 84-85 and says the same thing it looks like. They don't call out the net at all, but basically say if you move the rim/backboard while the ball is on the rim. They also seem to add when it's in the cylinder. SO, if you touch the net but it doesn't impact the rim or backboard to move/vibrate, shouldn't be a violation it appears. That's how I read it at least.

[Turk]

On a slightly different tack, Clawson of Wake is angry about how Pitt QB Pickett faked a slide and then ran for a long TD...I think he has a point that doing so needs to be penalized.

Rewatched the game. No penalty needed. If the refs want to call him down as he "started to slide" can do that. Sour grapes from the Wake coach, who will probably be coaching somewhere else next fall. What exactly is the foul? "Unsportsmanlike conduct"? "Impolite surrendering?" "Refusing to play dead?" Seems like the unintended consequences for running QBs, might get interesting. Pitt was the better team. Wake imploded with the three interceptions in the 2nd half. I would be happier if someone could make "Sweet Caroline" go away.

[MarkD83]

Rewatched the game. No penalty needed. If the refs want to call him down as he "started to slide" can do that. Sour grapes from the Wake coach, who will probably be coaching somewhere else next fall. What exactly is the foul? "Unsportsmanlike conduct"? "Impolite surrendering?" "Refusing to play dead?" Seems like the unintended consequences for running QBs, might get interesting. Pitt was the better team. Wake imploded with the three interceptions in the 2nd half. I would be happier if someone could make "Sweet Caroline" go away.

Perhaps the change in the rule is that once a QB starts running he is fair game for a hit. Why protect the QB in this situation.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Perhaps the change in the rule is that once a QB starts running he is fair game for a hit. Why protect the QB in this situation.

nah, just penalize the fake. It would take that kind of fake, along with the "victory formation" fake out of the game instantly.

[Bluedog]

Perhaps the change in the rule is that once a QB starts running he is fair game for a hit. Why protect the QB in this situation.

I don't think there is a rule is specific to a QB. It's for ANY player who slides, but certainly that is primarily QBs. A defender can tackle the QB the same as any other player, no?