Its been said in our asociation meetings and by many officials I work with as well as at camps I've attended, that legal guarding position does not count extended arms or legs, that it is shoulder width from floor to ceiling ( I know this sounds like verticality). My question comes from a sitch where a defender has established LGP but has his leg or legs extended well beyond his shoulders and a ball handler trips over the extended leg. Is this a block or not? As always thanks for the help!

I would say this depends a lot on what actually happens in the situation. What you consider "well beyond his shoulders" is difficult to picture in my mind. If they are well beyond as I see it, then it is an unnatural position and the defender can hardly move. In reality, slightly beyond is a very common defensive stance, especially if making any kind of defensive movements.

So if the player is stationary after having slid in a natural guarding stance, I would think it should be pretty extreme foot extension to call it. The offensive player can see the stance and move past the player without contacting them, so I would see this as a no-call. If the foot is really extended as if to prevent the player from getting by, I would think you should call it, and a trip not a block. If they are moving laterally together and the offensive player turns the corner, they are obviously ahead of the defender if all they contact is the foot. So there you also have a foul because the defender has not established legal guarding position, and again, a trip.

If the legs are quite wide, I call it even if the trip is slight. Even if the defender is planted. If the defender moves toward the dribbler in any way, I call it. If the dribbler is trying to sneak through a narrow space, and trips, it's too bad for her. As long as the defender didn't move toward the dribbler, it's either tough luck or travelling, depending.

That is a block.

Well stated rainmaker

Mark, you must have a better angle from your computer than I get from mine on this play ;) I think we ned more information to say definitively that there is a foul, and if it's a foul, it sure looks like a trip not a block.

Coach, want to show me the signal for a trip?

I'm assuming DeNucci was stating that there is no such foul.

A trip is not a foul. A trip is a state of mind. Far out, man.

You darn people from those "Sixties!" :)

Gotta go with Mark and Mark. There's no such thing as a trip. If the leg is extended out too far, it's a block. If the leg is not extended, it's nothing.

Oh, and I get to decide if it's extended or not! :)

If it's in my game, you better not be making the call for me, TH!!

That is, of course, until I go to Duke med school and I'm a bit closer to your area. :)

I made the mistake of looking at Rule 10 under contact and it lists a trip as an illegal form of contact so I went with it, although I couldn't even then remember a signal for that.
"10-6-1 . . . A player shall not: hold, push, charge, trip. . ."

So if a trip is listed as illegal contact with hold, push and charge, where do you find what you are supposed to call this foul a block when vocalizing what occurred? I can't find that in the rules and tried when I first looked this up. I don't doubt this is ture, but I can't find it and it bugs me.

Try 4-7-1 for the definition of a block and 4-23-1 for the sticking legs out.

It's mainly semantics - a "trip" is closest to block for the six signals we are supposed to use.

I am suprised that nobody noticed that I only used four, count them, four words to make my ruling.

True; but you then used 19 words to explain the fact that you made a ruling with only four words. :)