Both ways

[mick]

Last night Girls' Varsity.
I'm Lead on breakaway.

B4 stole the ball at mid-court and W40 (on B4's right) closely paralleled.
B4 got about a 1/4 step ahead of W40 and had a clear path to the front of the rim.
At that time W40, who never made an attempt at the ball, slowed to concede the layup and B4 slanted right for the backboard lay-in.
B4's right foot (coming up behind her) hit W40 (almost stopped) in the knee, and B4 went down.
B4 and ball went outa bounds.
I've got no push, no trip, no hands. It was all B4.
White ball!

Coach B asked "Wha'!"
"She tripped coach."

Not a minute later, I'm Trail, W15 is dribbling at mid-court sideline (table side) with B10 closely guarding (B10 is upright, facing and no hands). W15 makes a moved to her right and her left foot caught B10's planted foot and W15 goes down.
B10 hits ball OOB.
White Ball!
As I jogged over I told Coach B, "See, it goes both ways."
He says, "Yeah, but they got the ball both times."

mick

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by mick


Not a minute later, I'm Trail, W15 is dribbling at mid-court sideline (table side) with B10 closely guarding (B10 is upright, facing and no hands). W15 makes a moved to her right and her left foot caught B10's planted foot and W15 goes down.

A veteran NCAA official told me that this is always a foul.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

A veteran NCAA official told me that this is always a foul.

I've been told the same.

[mick]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

A veteran NCAA official told me that this is always a foul.

Player control for kicking?

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

I've been told the same.

I would agree, but only if the defender's foot was extended. Otherwise, it is great defensive position and the tough luck for the dribbler for cutting too close to the defender.

[Oz Referee]

For a foul to occur, there must be:

a)contact,
b)an illegal advantage or disadvantage

In this scenario the only disadvantge caused is to the person that has caused the contact (the offence). SO, my intepretation is no call, since although there is contact that could be called as a foul, the "victim" is also the "offender".

No Call!

[walter]

Three camps this summer. Various supervisors. On the floor, in the classroom, and in the bar their view was always the same. This is always a foul on the defense in scenario number 1. The defender was still moving and must get to a spot first. The dribbler cutting to the basket in this situation is entitled to do so without interference. Her normal running/dribbling movement never changed. When both the dribbler and the opponent are moving in the same path and direction the player behind is responsible for contact which results if the payer in front slows down, stops, or in this case changes direction. They also said that contact caused by a defensive player approaching a dribbler from behind is pushing. Theway it was explained was in these types of scenarios, the defender, who was still moving caused the contact by moving into the leg of the offensive player not the other way around no matter how it looked (i.e. her leg coming up and hitting the defender). Their reasoning being the defender was still moving. One even went so far as to say if they were observing a game where this happened and there was a no call, that crew would not like to hear what he had to say and might have a couple of days off. They did say it COULD BE a no call if the defender established and is in proper guarding position. That's not the case here because the offensive player was in front. They said it SHOULD BE a no call if the defender is stationary and the offensive player steps on the foot of the stationary defender and falls.

[bigwhistle]

The criteria for a foul MAY have been present in either and or both of these plays, but the reality is....IT IS NOT A FOUL UNLESS THE OFFICIAL SAYS IT IS!

Nobody but Mick was there, and in his opinion, it was incidental contact initiated by the offense.

GOOD JOB MICK!

[Danvrapp]

Originally posted by walter
....They also said that contact caused by a defensive player approaching a dribbler from behind is pushing. Theway it was explained was in these types of scenarios, the defender, who was still moving caused the contact by moving into the leg of the offensive player not the other way around no matter how it looked (i.e. her leg coming up and hitting the defender)....

Probably true. However, I'd apply the good 'ol advantage/disadvantage principle and rule with Mick. I make the block call almost every time when a slashing dribbler "trips" over a defender's leg, but I don't see how catching a foot on the way up for a layup is unlike the body contact that happens every single time during a tough post-play matchup. It's slight, it happens, and 99 times out of 100 the offensive player can work through it without us having to hear from the coach. When the other 1 time happens, tough luck--be a little stronger to the rack.

No foul from me. Play on.

[walter]

I'm not saying I agree with the guys from camp. I think it is a "ya hafta see it" play.

[Danvrapp]

Originally posted by walter
I'm not saying I agree with the guys from camp. I think it is a "ya hafta see it" play.

I agree with you there. Sometimes it's tough to picture a play in your head! But, this form is great for the sake of argument, though!

Mick, can you provide us with some streaming media of the play?

[Peter Devana]

I agree with Mick- He made the strong no call. It doesn't appear from his description that the defence caused the contact and the defences position was legal.The "popular" but weaker call on the defence that these camp instructors suggest is a bail-out, however, at the same time popular calls such as these may have got them where they are to-day depending where they work their games. In the NBA ,the popular , fan pleasing call is the norm.
Pistol

[Peter Devana]

I agree with Mick- He made the strong no call. It doesn't appear from his description that the defence caused the contact and the defences position was legal.The "popular" but weaker call on the defence that these camp instructors suggest is a bail-out, however, at the same time popular calls such as these may have got them where they are to-day depending where they work their games. In the NBA ,the popular , fan pleasing call is the norm.
Pistol

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Peter Devana
I agree with Mick-

Originally posted by Peter Devana
I agree with Mick-

Isn't once enough Peter?

First, I'm not saying that mick was wrong. He was there, not me. But as Cameron stated, the foot would have to be considered extended. My guess is that if the foot was tripped over, it was extended. It's rare that a player would trip over an opponent if the foot was not extended, such as one a legal vertical position is established. If B1 extends the foot, he is not considered to have a legal guarded position.

Let's substitute an arm for the foot. If B1 has his arm extended horizontally from his side, and A1 gets whacked arcoss the head when he dribbles by, do you have a foul on B1? I do.

The foot is no different. There are rules to address each situation.

[mick]

(B10 is upright, facing and no hands). W15 makes a moved to her right and her left foot caught B10's planted foot and W15 goes down.


B10 was in, what I thought was, a classic legal guarding postion. Feet were shoulder width, and hands and arms about 30 degrees down to her side. W15 made her move before B10 could react, thus B10 was still planted... both feet.
The action was right in front of W Coach. In fact when W15 fell, she was about 8' from W Coach. W Coach said nothing.

I really thought I'd get more grief from the first no-call.

mick