The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 14, 2004, 12:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8
Freshman boys game. A1 (dribbling) running a few feet ahead of B1 on a fast break. A1 falls down. If they were youger kids I would of called a foul for tripping but I didn't in this incident. Was I right or wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 14, 2004, 12:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
If B1 is running behind A1 and trips, yes, I definitely have a foul.

If B1 is stationary and A1 trips over his foot, no, I don't have a foul.

If A1 just falls, I've nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 14, 2004, 12:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by rocky50
Freshman boys game. A1 (dribbling) running a few feet ahead of B1 on a fast break. A1 falls down. If they were youger kids I would of called a foul for tripping but I didn't in this incident. Was I right or wrong?
No contact no whistle. You're probably going to hear it from coach A but tough. It's not a foul simply because a kid falls down.

If there was contact and the kid falls down because of it you need a whistle.

Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 14, 2004, 06:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,217
Accidental illegal contact is illegal contact all the same. If A fell because B hit his foot while running behind him, it may have been accidental, but it wasn't incidental. It's a foul.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 14, 2004, 06:16pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Question How so?

Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Accidental illegal contact is illegal contact all the same. If A fell because B hit his foot while running behind him, it may have been accidental, but it wasn't incidental. It's a foul.
Based on what? Because the players are clumbsy? You have to give us more rational than that. It sounds like the players just fell over each other. How is that illegal?

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 14, 2004, 06:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,217
I am not clumsy if I am running in front of you and you make contact with me from behind and cause me to trip. You are responsible for this contact and my fall. To suggest otherwise is bizarre.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 14, 2004, 06:37pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I am not clumsy if I am running in front of you and you make contact with me from behind and cause me to trip. You are responsible for this contact and my fall. To suggest otherwise is bizarre.
I did not read into the situation that there was any contact or how anyone fell. That is the reason Tony answered the question the way he did. There are other factors involved.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 14, 2004, 06:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,217
My initial post clearly said IF - I didn't choose to read into it either, nor did I anywhere disagree with Tony. Not sure why you feel the need to defend him or his post, with which I agree 100%.

Quote:
If A fell because B hit his foot while running behind him, it may have been accidental, but it wasn't incidental.


You disagreed with me, and my post stands on its own as correct. I don't really care what you read into the initial situation, because it was insufficiently specific to judge. No contact, no foul - we all know that.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 14, 2004, 07:11pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach
My initial post clearly said IF - I didn't choose to read into it either, nor did I anywhere disagree with Tony. Not sure why you feel the need to defend him or his post, with which I agree 100%.
I am not defending Tony's post, just like the way he approached it. Because he gave different situations that might apply.

Quote:
If A fell because B hit his foot while running behind him, it may have been accidental, but it wasn't incidental.


Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach

You disagreed with me, and my post stands on its own as correct. I don't really care what you read into the initial situation, because it was insufficiently specific to judge. No contact, no foul - we all know that.
I am not really disagreeing with you at all. Just wanted to know how the contact was illegal. You comment, not mine. I would say even if there is contact, it does not mean the player on the floor caused it. A1 could be clumbsy and could have tripped because he saw the player in front of him fall. Does not mean that the "trip" was caused by the fallen player.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 14, 2004, 07:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,217
Read the situation. B trails A. A does not see B and trip. A is on a fast break ahead of B. If there is contact between B and A with B trailing A, B is responsible by rule. This is not as complicated as you now seek to make it.

And from the subject title of this post, the trip by B of A is strongly implied.

Would you have a no call with B trailing A, B contacts A's foot from behind and A subsequently falls?
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 14, 2004, 09:06pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Read the situation. B trails A. A does not see B and trip. A is on a fast break ahead of B. If there is contact between B and A with B trailing A, B is responsible by rule. This is not as complicated as you now seek to make it.
It does not make any difference for me. Because the I just want to know why this is illegal contact?

Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach

Would you have a no call with B trailing A, B contacts A's foot from behind and A subsequently falls?
Not necessarily. Because the issue is "why they fell" not the fact that they made contact as a result. I could see B falling and A being clumbsy and falling as well. It does not "automatically" have to be because they made contact. I think that was the point everyone was making. Because I have seen players fall and the only reason they did it, was because they were manevering to avoid contact, then they fall. So if that is the case, there would not be a foul that I can see.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 15, 2004, 03:02am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: clinton, utah
Posts: 244
Had a classic one right out of the case book. A1 and B1 in key surrounded by other players. I am lead. B1 trips over her own feet while trying to guard and move with A1. As B1 is lying on the floor, A1 bumps into B1 and falls to the floor while holding the ball. B1 does not move towards A1 in any way and contact is all A1. TWEET! Travel! My oh my, A coach was not a happy camper and sure wanted a tripping foul on B1.
__________________
Ron
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 15, 2004, 10:21am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Don't call a foul just because someone falls, but if the trailing player trips (causes to fall by foot on foot contact)the lead player, it's a foul regardless of intention. If B1 is trailing dribbler A1, and B's foot contacts A1's foot, causing A1 to fall, it's a trip. I don't see how this contact could be judged to be anything less than an advantage for B.

Intent is irrelevant. If I think B1 tripped A1 on purpose, I've got an intentional foul.

Rarely does the guy trying to block a shot intend to foul the shooter, but we call a foul anyway. Same with tripping.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 15, 2004, 03:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,217
I understand that a player on the floor that another player then runs into does not necessarily cause a foul. I know that no contact is no foul, so the player falling while trying to avoid another player falling is just bad luck. and it seems that many of us agree that a player running behind another player who "trips" that player through fot-on-foot contact has committed a foul, and it should be called in a fast break situation where an opportunity is lost as a result. You may choose to ignore this in half court if you see no advantage gained, just a couple players falling.

How about this. A is dribbling p court, B is trailing, B trips over his own shoelace and falls into A's feet from behind directly causing A to fall and lose ball. It seems that some believe this is just two players falling over each other. I have a foul. Opinions?
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 15, 2004, 03:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach
How about this. A is dribbling p court, B is trailing, B trips over his own shoelace and falls into A's feet from behind directly causing A to fall and lose ball. It seems that some believe this is just two players falling over each other. I have a foul. Opinions?
Foul on B. Done.

Now, HC and JR go get a snack from the vending machine and relax.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1