Rules Question

[Puppy Love]

Can someone please explain this to me? At around 2:41 left to go in the third quarter of the Tennessee game, Heckle turns to box out and get the rebound. Barker goes up to get the pass and lands on Heckle. It’s not a moving screen of any kind and Barker isn’t in control/doesn’t have possession of the ball. I don’t understand why they both are not entitled to that real estate. No one seemed to think that it was a questionable call, so please explain to me why Heckle called for the foul.

 

[BBallF]

The only thing that pops out to me is the fact that she may have gotten to the spot a little late and the offensive player did not have a place to land.

 

[PacoSwede]

Can someone please explain this to me? At around 2:41 left to go in the third quarter of the Tennessee game, Heckle turns to box out and get the rebound. Barker goes up to get the pass and lands on Heckle. It’s not a moving screen of any kind and Barker isn’t in control/doesn’t have possession of the ball. I don’t understand why they both are not entitled to that real estate. No one seemed to think that it was a questionable call, so please explain to me why Heckle called for t.he foul.

i had exactly the same question. why was that a heckel foul? seemed to me barker clearly initiated the contact.

 

[BobbyJ]

Heckel is entitled to the space she occupied when Barker left the floor. However, if she in any way backs into or turns and/or ducks into the space where Barker would land coming straight down, that would be a foul on Heckel. If she holds her ground in her space and Barker lands on her, that would be a foul on Barker. Now I have to go back and watch it again to see which one applies if the camera was on them long enough.

 

[BBallF]

Heckel is entitled to the space she occupied when Barker left the floor. However, if she in any way backs into or turns and/or ducks into the space where Barker would land coming straight down, that would be a foul on Heckel. If she holds her ground in her space and Barker lands on her, that would be a foul on Barker. Now I have to go back and watch it again to see which one applies if the camera was on them long enough.

There is a slo mo replay which is helpful. Interested to hear what you think.

 

[Millenial23]

Fouls almost always go against the defensive player when the offensive player is shooting. If Heckel had been there slightly longer, I think it could have been called a charge. But it was too close. I won't complain, that's one of those hard calls the refs had to make. Yeah it was scary, but I think the call could have gone either way (and either fan base would have been upset).

 

[BobbyJ]

There is a slo mo replay which is helpful. Interested to hear what you think.

Just checked it. That's a very tough one to call because it appears that Heckel arrives to that spot almost simultaneously with Barker leaving the floor. There is no real contact as Barker launches. And Heckel doesn't move back into Barker's landing spot, she just establishes her position while Barker lands on her. Since Barker is moving slightly forward when contact occurs, it would seem the foul should be on her. But it was bang-bang. It's too bad that Auriemma didn't or couldn't have challenged the call, the refs would've have taken 15 minutes to figure that one out.

 

[PacoSwede]

i thought both k9 and barker were rebounding on the play.. no?

 

[BobbyJ]

i thought both k9 and barker were rebounding on the play.. no?

No, it appears Barker was attempting to catch and maybe shoot off of a lob pass.

 

[Puppy Love]

Just checked it. That's a very tough one to call because it appears that Heckel arrives to that spot almost simultaneously with Barker leaving the floor. There is no real contact as Barker launches. And Heckel doesn't move back into Barker's landing spot, she just establishes her position while Barker lands on her. Since Barker is moving slightly forward when contact occurs, it would seem the foul should be on her. But it was bang-bang. It's too bad that Auriemma didn't or couldn't have challenged the call, the refs would've have taken 15 minutes to figure that one out.

I really like this answer! I’ve been watching women’s basketball for more than 40 years. Sometimes I still don’t understand the more technical aspects of the game. That foul, however, just baffled me. I thought it was a foul on Barker or a no call.

 

[Dogstar]

I remember the play, i thk it was on a rebound, Barker went up for the rebound and Heckel was attempting to box her out and actually backed up and undercut Barker causing her to fall over her back, it's a dangerous move and is usually called against the person who's boxing out. Whn ur in the air and someone undercuts ur legs it puts you in a very (ive been there) vulnerable position and ur survival instinct kicks in and ur try to grab anything available and if ur lucky you won't have to make an appointment with ur dentist or suffer and concussion.

 

[Centerstream]

No, it appears Barker was attempting to catch and maybe shoot a lob pass.

And in the ND game, the exact opposite happened. Sarah was in the low post I believe gave a head fake, and Hildago landed on Sarah's back. Foul on Hildago. Announcers agreed.
In Kayleigh's case, Barker jumped on to her back, foul incorrectly called on Kayleigh and the announcers agreed with the call...even after the replay clearly shows a moving Barker initiated all contact. IMO.

 

[BobbyJ]

I really like this answer! I’ve been watching women’s basketball for more than 40 years. Sometimes I still don’t understand the more technical aspects of the game. That foul, however, just baffled me. I thought it was a foul on Barker or a no call.

The only reason I can understand the foul being on Heckel is that the ref ruled that Heckel turned her back to Barker rather than facing her. And if she had been facing, that could have been disastrous for Heckel. 🥴

 

[BobbyJ]

I remember the play, i thk it was on a rebound, Barker went up for the rebound and Heckel was attempting to box her out and actually backed up and undercut Barker causing her to fall over her back, it's a dangerous move and is usually called against the person who's boxing out. Whn ur in the air and someone undercuts ur legs it puts you in a very (ive been there) vulnerable position and ur survival instinct kicks in and ur try to grab anything available and if ur lucky you won't have to make an appointment with ur dentist or suffer and concussion.

No, it was definitely a lob pass. The ball isn't close to going towards the rim. As I said above, I think the problem was that Heckel wasn't facing Barker and the ref probably ruled that she wasn't established there because they both got there simultaneously.

 

[BobbyJ]

And in the ND game, the exact opposite happened. Sarah was in the low post I believe gave a head fake, and Hildago landed on Sarah's back. Foul on Hildago. Announcers agreed.
In Kayleigh's case, Barker jumped on to her back, foul incorrectly called on Kayleigh and the announcers agreed with the call...even after the replay clearly shows a moving Barker initiated all contact. IMO.

Big difference. Strong was the offensive player who fakes HH into the air and then gets fouled on an attempted shot which is a shooting foul. This play had no established possession or position for either player and it wasn't a rebounding foul.

 

[Centerstream]

Big difference. Strong was the offensive player who fakes HH into the air and then gets fouled on an attempted shot which is a shooting foul. This play had no established possession or position for either player and it wasn't a rebounding foul.

Barker was attempting a lob shot and Kayleigh had established her rebounding position. IMO.

 

[Dogstar]

Barker was attempting a lob shot and Kayleigh h established her rebounding position. IMO.

Went back to check and Ur right it's was a lob, Heckel stopped to establish a rebounding position and Barker ( being in the air b4 Heckel stopped) came down on her back. Being tht she was in the air whn Heckel stopped is key bcus Barker is allowed space to land I think tht if Heckel was facing her and established b4 the shooter was airborne it would've probably been a offensive foul.

 

[Centerstream]

Went back to check and Ur right it's was a lob, Heckel stopped to establish a rebounding position and Barker ( being in the air b4 Heckel stopped) came down on her back. Being tht she was in the air whn Heckel stopped is key bcus Barker is allowed space to land I think tht if Heckel was facing her and established b4 the shooter was airborne it would've probably been a offensive foul.

Ok. My recollection was that Barker was not in the air yet.
Plus it's a judgment call. Many times on layup fouls it appears that a defensive player will slide beneath a player and which player gets called for the foul is toss up.
But that's for another day.

 

[VaConnFan11]

I believe that in a non-rebounding situation, you have to be in a "legal guarding position" to draw an offensive foul and having your back to a player is not a "legal guarding position".

 

[CL82]

If she holds her ground in her space and Barker lands on her, that would be a foul on Barker.

That's what it looked like to me, in real time.

 

[CL82]

I remember the play, i thk it was on a rebound, Barker went up for the rebound and Heckel was attempting to box her out and actually backed up and undercut Barker causing her to fall over her back, it's a dangerous move and is usually called against the person who's boxing out.

You might want to give it another look. K9 didn't undercut her. She was standing still. Barker's forward momentum is what caused the collision. My guess is the ref felt like. Heckel didn't give her a place to land.

These calls are tough to make in real time, more often than not the refs get them right. It's the ones that they don't get them right that infuriate us.

 

[and one]

Just checked it. That's a very tough one to call because it appears that Heckel arrives to that spot almost simultaneously with Barker leaving the floor. There is no real contact as Barker launches. And Heckel doesn't move back into Barker's landing spot, she just establishes her position while Barker lands on her. Since Barker is moving slightly forward when contact occurs, it would seem the foul should be on her. But it was bang-bang. It's too bad that Auriemma didn't or couldn't have challenged the call, the refs would've have taken 15 minutes to figure that one out.

I thought K9 established her spot on first watching and rewound to check it out slo-mo. Still thought she didn't foul but close enough not to get too excited about it.

 

[JoePgh]

I think it all comes down to whether Barker had started her shooting motion before K9 established her position. If the offensive player is in motion and has even one foot off the ground to start a shooting motion, then the window for the defender to establish her position has closed. That makes sense, because if a player has started a shooting motion and has left the ground (even with one foot), she needs to be able to land. At that point, she is "cleared for takeoff", and defenders need to vacate her runway.

 

[Dogstar]

You might want to give it another look. K9 didn't undercut her. She was standing still. Barker's forward momentum is what caused the collision. My guess is the ref felt like. Heckel didn't give her a place to land.

These calls are tough to make in real time, more often than not the refs get them right. It's the ones that they don't get them right that infuriate us.

See post#17... it says something kinda similar to ur post.

 

[BobbyJ]

You might want to give it another look. K9 didn't undercut her. She was standing still. Barker's forward momentum is what caused the collision. My guess is the ref felt like. Heckel didn't give her a place to land.

These calls are tough to make in real time, more often than not the refs get them right. It's the ones that they don't get them right that infuriate us.

That's what I thought at first also but I believe @VaConnFan11 has it right in post #19. Because it wasn't a rebounding play and because Heckel had her back turned to Barker it wasn't a 'legal guarding position'.