Unintentional Trip

[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?

[BktBallRef]

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.

[Dan_ref]

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.

[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.

[JRutledge]

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

[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.

[JRutledge]

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

[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%.

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.

[JRutledge]

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.

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

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

[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.

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?

[JRutledge]

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?

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

[rcwilco]

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.

[Adam]

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.

[Hawks Coach]

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?

[wizard]

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.