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. :)

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
 

I did notice your brief posting and was in SHOCK! :D

Nice call!

i report the nature of the foul. trip. a block signal does not explain the nature foul very well. like when a defender hits the shooter in the head trying to block the shot, illegal use of the hands is the nf/nc2a book signal. i will still imitate the foul with my signal.

I've definately noticed that the NCAA guys don't stick to the six signals.

Is that something your assignors/supervisors tell you to do?

they ask us to report "what happens." i look at the rule book signals as a guide line for mechanics. reporting a "hit to the head" or "trip" creates less confusion. sometimes when using the book mech. that does not describe what actually happened (i.e. illegal use of hands as opposed to hit to the head) can cause a coach to question your call. creating our own signals adds a little personality to our officiating, just dont go to the extreme.

i have been questioned by "pure" high school officials by by the trip mech. and whatnot. they say it is not in the rule book. try not to get too technical with the rule book, a good official is not determined by where he stands in a timeout, or how textbook his mechanics are. how you present yourself in the game and how smooth your mechanics are-are better representative than how text book your mechanics are.

Tony, I'm going to stick with what I said before.

The college mechanics are great for college games. I actually prefer the demonstrative signals (as long as it's not too complicated/showy) as they do help eliminate a lot of confusion as to who did what to whom.

However, I believe that guys/gals working HS ball who want to do college ball should use HS mechanics (or the mechanics of their area) when doing their HS games. I think doing this shows you are a good official at your level and are able to move up and work another level.

tony, this is very true. But for the vast majority of us, good "by-the-book" mechanics are how we initially get noticed. If a guy's mechanics suck, the odds are overwhelming that an assignor will not give him a second look. If you want to get that second look, then your mechanics have to be "spot on", so to speak.

Now, once you get that second look, you better be able to call a darn good game. No question. And that's where I totally agree with you about being smooth and making the right calls. Mechanics do not make the official. But without the good mechanics, most of us will never get to find out how good we can be.

Chuck

I agree with you Mark, in fact the NCAA/CAA signals are, get this, the same as the NFHS plus a few additions (read pat the top of your head for a shot clock violation, this is the same as the NBA/WNBA signal). When a player gets tripped in a high school or college game it is a block by rule (see Rule 4: Definitions). An "over the back" (oh how I hated to say the phrase because I do not use it) is pushing. When B1 hits A1 in the head during a field goal attempt this is illegal use of the hands.

Just because the coaches do not know the rules or know what the signals are is no excuse for officials (high school or college) to lower their performance standards.

if the leg is extended, it is a block! extended meaning, if the leg a lot more than shoulder with out, it is a block, it is a judgement call to a point!

Absolutely Doug - you gotta judge it to be an excessive extension first - can't do that from here! I would go with if the defender looks like they have a natural stance, its a no-call.

Coach, exactly what is an excessive extention versus an extension? The rulebook simpy says "extends."

BTW, you ask about vocalizing when your reporting. I don't. That gives the coach one less thing to argue about. :)

"Blue, 44" Block signal. No verbalization.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Jan 19th, 2002 at 12:36 AM]

Eye of the beholder, and I think you recognize it if you see it. I think that shoulder width precisely is a very rare stance, but far greater than shoulder width is also a rare stance. IMO, a defender in a stance that appears natural (i.e., does not look like he is assuming a wide stance as you see it) should not be penalized for standing while another player trips over his foot. In my experience, this is generally considered incidental contact. It's up to you to see what you see, and call what you must. If the stance looks wide to you, I am willing to bet the feet are greater than shoulder width apart so call it if you see it that way.

In the end, fouls are strictly judgment, I'm just giving some guidance on that judgment.

Rarely does a defender who's trying to take a "wide" stance leave his/her legs straight. Almost always a knee gets extended, or the hips get shifted.

TH
 

I have adopted the non-verbalized reporting (based on your, and others', suggestiopn) and I have noticed it DOES reduce the amount of Howler Monkey remarks.

Thanks for the advice! :)

Check 4-23-1, a player who extends a leg does not have legal guarding position (LGP) when contact occurs.

Re: TH
 

Good deal! Glad it's working for you! :)

Crew- If this works for you, fine, but as I stated in another post, please don't encourage others to act like this. In our association, certain drifting from textbook mechanics are certain doom. The top officials dont stick to them exactly, but they did before they got to the top. If we veer, even slightly, we get yet another year of marginal JV games, and JV 2 scrimmages.

Apparently in your area, the HS assignor isn't as tight, (or perhaps more desperate?) but lots of other assignors really care about the details. Rememver, when in Rome... but you live in Sparta.