Blocking Foul ...
 

I've never reported a "tripping" foul, it's always been a "block".

IAABO doesn't have a signal for a trip. I don't believe that the NFHS has a trip signal either.

Anticipation ...
 

A phrase that a basketball official's best friend.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Z...=0&w=250&h=163

*I've observed many NF officials to use non-NF signals and terminology all the time; however, everybody knows what they mean ( e.g., fist-to-hip to signify a block instead of the NF sign, or snapping a fist to chop in the clock instead the NF sign, or extending two closed fists at the score table to signify a full time out instead of the NF sign, or...I could go on and on) but rather than semantics, the main point is still: Bearing that the Principle under inspection of the case play is a "charge" not a "block/trip/occlusion"; therefore, will your (our collective) self-awareness of a tendency to miss-call this play enable you (us) to nail it in the future or continue to miss-call it?
IMHO it will take a combo of getting in exceptionally good position, cognitive alertness, and temerity in order to satisfactorily improve.

Oldie But Goodie ...
 

Reminds me of this oldie but goodie:

10.6.1E (NFHS 2004-05): B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts' B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

10.6.1E, hasn't been in the NFHS casebook since 2004-05. Before that it was in the casebook for nine years, and then suddenly the NFHS dropped it from the casebook, without any comment, and without any rule change, and without any replacement casebook interpretation. In sixteen years, there has been no new NFHS ruling to the contrary.

Why did it disappear? Because the NFHS wanted to free up some room in the casebook? Or because it was inadvertently dropped from the casebook (like the multiple substitute lineup rule was inadvertently dropped from the rulebook several years ago, or as one clause of the goaltending definition was inadvertently deleted from the rulebook several years ago)? Is 10.6.1E still relevant? How is a new official supposed to know about this interpretation? How is an experienced official who used this interpretation for the nine years that it was in the casebook supposed to know that the interpretation has been deleted, or may have even been changed to the contrary, if indeed it actually has changed to the contrary?

For it to be a player control foul, the defenders have to be disadvantaged. It's hard to see much disadvantage if after the contact they are standing up and the offensive player is on the ground. Don't turn what should be a no-call into an offensive foul just because the offense is responsible for what in this description sounds like incidental contact.

*On the contrary youngump, I'm not saying it's a Charge foul; it the most recent edition of the NF Casebook that is saying it's a Charge. Go read the case play. What the focus of this series of posts is on is simply notating the tendency to mis-call this type of action due to either not being in proper position, not knowing that this is a "charging foul", and/or not having the temerity to call this type of action appropriately as per the NF Casebook.

The correct signal to use is: Blocking.

MTD, Sr.

Thanks for all your post it has helped me gain perspective, looking forward to being aware for this type of action in my games.