10.7.7 (case play)_

[youngump]

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 ( 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.

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.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.