10.7.7 (case play)_
 

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.

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

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

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

For The Good Of The Cause ...
 

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.

May The Force Be With You ...
 

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.

Don't Take My Mind On A Trip (Boy George, 1989) ...
 

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.

Tripping, Being Tripped ...
 

Pick a prize from the top shelf.

*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.

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

*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

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.

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.

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Forty Five Years Ago ...
 

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.

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.