10.7.7 (case play)_

[Kansas Ref]

I have seen this play occur at times and have always seen it called a "tripping" foul on the defender despite the defender's being legally positioned ( as described in case play).
When that dribbler falls down while trying to force his/her ways thru traffic/split a trap., Refs always seem to mis-call it as a trip up and penalize the defender, but in this case doesn't the dribbler bear responsibility for the contact and their own resultant fall? Ergo, I wondered why this is so frequently mis- called, and I think its because of the appearance of a "body on the floor" must be a defensive foul instead of ( as Rule book says) a player control foul. I am vowing to be better with summoning up the temerity to call this situation correctly this season.

[crosscountry55]

Generally agree. Going where there is not space between two defenders or one defender and a boundary line, the dribbler has greater responsibility for the contact. But just having greater responsibility does not itself confirm a call; you still have to judge the contact in full context. For example, was one of the defenders illegally impeding the ball handler while they tried to move though the tight space? Block. Or, while it may not be philosophically popular among some assigners (and coaches!), sometimes a no-call is the right outcome here (just having greater responsibility does not automatically infer an offensive foul).

Two cents: I think that situation between defender and boundary line is more often mis-called (i.e. as a foul on the defender). I’ve been guilty of that myself sometimes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

If the defenders are in LGP, I agree -- but often, one of the defenders does not "get there in time" and it becomes a foul on the defense.

Just like many "elevator screens" are too late and should be called illegal screens on the offense

[LRZ]

I've called it on occasion. I think many coaches--and officials, too--don't know this even exists.

[BillyMac]

10.7.7 SITUATION: During congested play in the free-throw semi-circle, B1 and B2 are less than 3 feet apart when dribbler A1 fakes to one side and then causes contact in attempting to dribble between them. RULING: Unless one of the defensive players is faked out of position to permit adequate space for the dribbler to go between without making contact, it is a player-control foul on A1. COMMENT: Screening principles apply to the dribbler who attempts to cut off an opponent who is approaching in a different path from the rear. In this case, the dribbler must allow such opponent a maximum of two steps or an opportunity to stop or avoid contact. When both the dribbler and the opponent are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible for contact which results if the player in front slows down or stops. (4-7-2)

10-7-7: A dribbler must neither charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path nor attempt to dribble between two opponents or between an opponent and a boundary, unless the space is such as to provide a reasonable chance for him/ her to go through without contact.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I think that situation between defender and boundary line is more often mis-called (i.e. as a foul on the defender).

Force out was a real NBA rule back in ancient times.

1974-75: Force out rule is clarified as incidental contact near a boundary line, which causes a player to commit a violation or go out of bounds, and neither team is responsible for the action. The offensive team retains possession.

1976-77 Force out eliminated. If a player is forced out of bounds, it will either be a foul on the defender or an offensive violation.

I think that I remember this being a rule back when I was in high school.

I barely stayed eligible to play, we had to pass two of the three classes we took: huntin', gruntin', and cave painting.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

I have seen this play occur at times and have always seen it called a "tripping" foul on the defender despite the defender's being legally positioned ...

There's a difference between tripping and being tripped.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

There's a difference between tripping and being tripped.

*Tripping = "hay dude we're just trippin out man, peace& love". OK, I believe we understand that the "tripping" is what is you do to yourself; whereas "being tripped" is what someone does to you.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

... "tripping" is what is you do to yourself; whereas "being tripped" is what someone does to you.

Pick a prize from the top shelf.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Generally agree. Going where there is not space between two defenders or one defender and a boundary line, the dribbler has greater responsibility for the contact. But just having greater responsibility does not itself confirm a call; you still have to judge the contact in full context. For example, was one of the defenders illegally impeding the ball handler while they tried to move though the tight space? Block. Or, while it may not be philosophically popular among some assigners (and coaches!), sometimes a no-call is the right outcome here (just having greater responsibility does not automatically infer an offensive foul).

Two cents: I think that situation between defender and boundary line is more often mis-called (i.e. as a foul on the defender). I’ve been guilty of that myself sometimes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

*Thanks for the clarity; do you think that self awareness of this tendency will lead to a change? I believe that in order to really nail this type of call you got to be in perfect position-- dare I say to anticipate the imminent action.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Force out was a real NBA rule back in ancient times.

1974-75: Force out rule is clarified as incidental contact near a boundary line, which causes a player to commit a violation or go out of bounds, and neither team is responsible for the action. The offensive team retains possession.

1976-77 Force out eliminated. If a player is forced out of bounds, it will either be a foul on the defender or an offensive violation.

I think that I remember this being a rule back when I was in high school.

I barely stayed eligible to play, we had to pass two of the three classes we took: huntin', gruntin', and cave painting.

*I believe that , in these modern times, calling a "force out" (non-violation?) would be awkward--if not wholly indefensible.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Pick a prize from the top shelf.

*Yet despite the obvious /literal difference between those verbs, when mis-calling / mis-reporting the foul, we tend either say or indicate "tripping" by the defense.

Oh and can I donate my prize to charity? Billymac Officials Develop Foundation

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If the defenders are in LGP, I agree -- but often, one of the defenders does not "get there in time" and it becomes a foul on the defense.

Just like many "elevator screens" are too late and should be called illegal screens on the offense

For the purposes of comparing our real-time encounters with such plays/circumstances (i.e., while working a game) to the Principle in the case play it assumed that LGP was established; therefore, the defender did get there in time. Ergo, a "miss-call" on the Defense will continue to occur.

Ok I see your point, and that was indeed astute to also cite awareness of illegal action when executing elevator screens, which are known to me as "down screens" and moreover our collective tendency to fail to penalize the offense--which I contend can be rectified by summoning the temerity to do so.
Thanks so much.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

*Thanks for the clarity; do you think that self awareness of this tendency will lead to a change?

Yes, and I have found this to work in my game over the years. That said (and I don’t mean this to be sexist), I don’t work much girls or junior BB these days, which is where one tends to see this kind of play more often.

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

I believe that in order to really nail this type of call you got to be in perfect position-- dare I say to anticipate the imminent action.

There’s no shame in anticipating plays. Just don’t anticipate calls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

I believe that, in these modern times, calling a "force out" (non-violation) would be awkward, if not wholly indefensible.

Of course.

I don't believe that the force out has been a part of any rule set since 1976-77.

Unless it's the pickup game among octogenarians down at the senior citizen center.