Missed Trip
 

College rules game but would be interested in the high school ruling or case play.

A1 drives toward the elbow from the top of the key and loses control of the ball and goes to the floor. The play is moving to the other end of the court and B3 runs by A1 who is on the floor. A1 who is frustrated reaches out to grab the foot of B3 to trip him. A's hand misses his foot and no contact is made. What you got?

HTBT, sounds like a Technical foul for unsporting conduct

If this was an NCAA Game, the rule would be the same. You cannot have a foul for no contact. And I do not see how you would have a Technical for just trying to grab another player. I have nothing, but I would watch that player from that point on for sure and call the first little thing they did that could be considered a foul.

Peace

So this was brought up and a hypothetical spin was put on the situation. Player B3 runs by player A1 and A1 stick his foot out to try and trip B3 but missed. Similar situation trying to trip a player but no conduct. Player does it again, and again do we have to wait until he hurts someone to enforce a penalty?

My feeling is we need to address the player with an unsporting T, but at the same time need to make sure the rules support the ruling.

First of all, do not conflate the situation by adding more situations to your OP. And then you add things with the same standard for your OP because it does not fit your position. You also did not say tried to trip, you said they tried to grab. Those are two totally different things and circumstances. And it would be different if someone tried to grab someone than tried to trip someone and totally missed that one time. For one, players try to grab opponents all the time and miss and we do not call anything until they actually grab their opponents and we certainly do not call a T for the one and only "attempt."

I would assume if I saw someone try to trip someone the first time and missed, I probably would be talking to that player very soon so they know I saw them or what it looked like. And if they made contact, it would not be a T during a live ball for sure. At best it might be an "Intentional Foul" or maybe "Flagrant" depending on the severity of the action. But still not a T unless the ball was dead.

Now did you ask the question to be "right" or did you ask the question for opinions? Because you first came to this saying that this happened at an NCAA level, which the basic rules are not any different (at least with Men's Rules). Players fall all the time and in the attempt to get up they try to restrict the opponent on some level, sometimes with their legs or arms or even body. IF they "miss" and you call a T for that, it better be so obvious that if someone shows the tape there is no question. Often it is very subtle or questionable. I would rather call Ts for things that stand out so big that no one can question the situation if they saw it on video. Your description might have looked obvious, but was it obvious to everyone else? And it does not matter if this is an NCAA or high school game, the philosophy would be the same for me.

Peace

I did say specifically that he tried to trip him, highlighted above. I am looking for opinions of handling the situation. Appreciate if it is a T that anyone watching would agree and needs to be obvious on the tape, like that approach. Basically, pending any specific case play or ruling it comes to grey area officiating, what is the best approach to the situation? What rules can we apply to the situation and be supported? The answer maybe nothing, we have no penalty to apply within the rules, but would agree we are addressing the player at the first opportunity about the situation if that is the case. Thanks for any additional thoughts.

I had this play at a camp two weeks ago and I called a technical foul for USB. Clinicians at my court were fine with it but I guess this is a "you had to be there" situation.

Once again, you said tried to grab him. And you also said that he tried to grab his foot. To me, that is not a kicking motion with the leg or even something we know automatically he was ultimately trying to do.

Again if you are looking for opinions, I gave you one. I gave it based off of the OP and comments. Then you added other situations that would change the situation. No, I am not calling a T for what you described in the OP without seeing it clearly. A continuous attempt of doing something would elicit a different response. And you would have to see it to know how egregious or if it was subtle and not easily understood. If it was something done that I "thought" took place, I would approach that player so they know I am aware of what they tried. Now if they try it again they know I was watching. Could you call a T? Sure, but be careful if you are the only one that knows this took place or it does not show up on video. Because the coach is going to only show that play, not the two or three other incidents that took place.

I threw out a player in football a couple of years ago for throwing a punch and connecting with a players helmet after he was first flagrantly contacted by his opponents previously in the same action. I got "written up" (which is a serious process) and the video did not show the entire incident in total. I was accused of not ignoring the situation or stopping a kid from throwing a punch in retaliation as if I was going to stop a 290-pound player from doing anything to him in the first place. All that was shown on video I was standing there initially and the camera did not show the rest of the actions out of frame. But the contention was that I should have somehow stopped the reaction (by the team that was the player) after blowing my whistle and being 10 feet away from the situation the entire time (not following the ball). I say this because even when you are "right" you still have to deal with the perceptions of the reaction. So that is why some said it was a HTBT situation. Because if you call it and it doesn't show up on video, you might get more scrutiny. So if it is not obvious and you are "too technical" that might hurt you in the long run. Someone doing something over and over has nothing to do with the OP you made. That is a different situation and might help you when you finally call a T. So no, you do not have to wait until someone gets hurt and you do not prevent people from getting hurt even if you make the call.

Peace

Agree.

If it is something you'd call an intentional or flagrant foul for had there been contact, I think you have to have something. And that something is a technical foul. Trying to trip someone ala Grayson Allen is not a basketball play and if you wait to see actual contact, you're going to have bigger problems since there will be 3-4 occurrences of bad behavior you will probably not see.

Appreciate the comments

Agreed, It maybe similar to discussing Common foul vs F1 or F1 vs F2. Without video you will be hard pressed to get a definitive answer.

Grayson Allan was not accused of possibly tripping people, he actually did. He was never just accused of trying, he accomplished that fact and was never given a T for such action. He was given Flagrant Fouls for his actual actions.

Peace

If he tried to trip someone and an official saw it, do you really thing the official would have ignored it? If it tried to trip someone but missed, it is the same is throwing a punch and missing. The attempt itself needs to be addressed.

Citation ...
 

NFHS 4-18: Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as: An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.

Attempted, but failed, tripping may not quite be the same as attempted, but failed, punching, or attempted, but failed, kicking, but it's worth discussing.

Of course if attempted, but failed, tripping leads to a fight, that may be another permutation of this issue.

Agreed this point was also brought up as we have separate rules to address fighting.

Edit reason: When I say "was brought up" we discussed this play in person after it occurred. Didn't feel as though we came to a definitive conclusion which is why I posted here for additional discussion.