10.7.7 (case play)_

[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 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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

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.

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.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

*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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

The correct signal to use is: Blocking.

MTD, Sr.

[Kansas Ref]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

... a "tripping" foul on the defender ...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

There's a difference between tripping and being tripped.

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?