Dribbler trips, or was tripped . . .

[assignmentmaker]

I am a devotee of the idea that, if there's contact between a dribbler and defender, and something happened that had a material effect, then something probably happened.

That being said, here's something that happens not infrequently that I thinks slips between the cracks of the rules. It's not covered in the casebook, to my knowledge - if it is, I'd be happy to hear about it.

Defender B1 is standing still and has legal guarding position on dribbler A1. A1 moves to go around B1, gets head and shoulders past B1, but, in going around, trips on B1's foot. Disadvantage A1.

Player control, disadvantage, this is not the stuff of the (illusive, often scoundrelly) 'good no-call'. Yet, in this one, highly defined circumstance, I find I see it that way. I'm not about to call a player control foul; and I'm not about to call a block on a player who has legal guarding position and is standing still. For the rationale oriented . . . how about this: "yes, head and shoulders were past the defender, but the defender's foot was at his/her shoulder's width . . . thus contact was actually within shoulder-to-shoulder."

[ChuckElias]

This is a prototypical example of incidental contact. The defender had legal guarding position; neither player displaced the other; neither was hindered from normal activity by the action of the other.

In other words, if the dribbler falls, it's his own dumb fault. No whistle here. If the kid picks up his dribble before hitting the ground, oh well. . . Tweet! Travel.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
I am a devotee of the idea that, if there's contact between a dribbler and defender, and something happened that had a material effect, then something probably happened.

That being said, here's something that happens not infrequently that I thinks slips between the cracks of the rules. It's not covered in the casebook, to my knowledge - if it is, I'd be happy to hear about it.

Defender B1 is standing still and has legal guarding position on dribbler A1. A1 moves to go around B1, gets head and shoulders past B1, but, in going around, trips on B1's foot. Disadvantage A1.

Player control, disadvantage, this is not the stuff of the (illusive, often scoundrelly) 'good no-call'. Yet, in this one, highly defined circumstance, I find I see it that way. I'm not about to call a player control foul; and I'm not about to call a block on a player who has legal guarding position and is standing still. For the rationale oriented . . . how about this: "yes, head and shoulders were past the defender, but the defender's foot was at his/her shoulder's width . . . thus contact was actually within shoulder-to-shoulder."

See the definition of a foul in rule 4-19-1. It states that a foul is illegal contact. If you judge any contact to be legal, there simply ain't a foul. Also see rule 4-27- "Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does NOT constitute a foul". The articles of that particular section add further explanation of what incidental contact is.

A good example, and one that is very close to your play, is case book play 10.6.1SitE. In that one, the defender is one on the floor and the dribbler contacted him, lost control and fell. The ruling is that no infraction or foul has occurred and play continues.

Iow, the rules cover the cracks. That help you out?

[assignmentmaker]

Yes, thanks.

[Nevadaref]

Additionally, remember that the head and shoulders past the torso guideline does not dictate that the contact, if any occurs, is the fault of the defender. Rather it only says that the defender bears the greater responsibility for the contact.

RULE 10 - SECTION 6 CONTACT
ART. 2 . . . If a dribbler, without contact, sufficiently passes an opponent to have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent, the greater responsibility for subsequent contact is on the opponent.


As others have already said, the case that you have detailed is one of those for which the defender is not responsible for the contact and no foul should be called.

Incidental contact covers this play quite well.
RULE 4 - SECTION 27 INCIDENTAL CONTACT
Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul.
ART. 1 . . . The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. When 10 players are moving rapidly in a limited area, some contact is certain to occur.
ART. 2 . . . Contact which occurs unintentionally in an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.

ART. 3 . . . Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.
ART. 4 . . . A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact with the screener by stopping or going around the screener. In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener, and such contact is to be ruled incidental contact, provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball.

ART. 5 . . . If, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from a position from which he/she has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility is on the player in the unfavorable position.




[Edited by Nevadaref on Jun 25th, 2005 at 03:26 AM]