Tripping in Basketball

[zakman2005000]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

It's not defensive pass interference if the defender looks back for the ball and the feet get tangled and both go down. Wrong sport.

If feet get tangled and one player is a dribbler, yup, it's a foul. How did the feet get tangled?

Maybe we are envisioning different scenarios, but if dribbler A1 cuts off a defender, the only contact between them is tangling of feet and A1 is the only player to hit the floor, I can't imagine calling a foul on A1. Now, if A1 isn't the player that is creating the contact, then I agree with you that it's a foul.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by zakman2005000

Maybe we are envisioning different scenarios, but if dribbler A1 cuts off a defender, the only contact between them is tangling of feet and A1 is the only player to hit the floor, I can't imagine calling a foul on A1. Now, if A1 isn't the player that is creating the contact, then I agree with you that it's a foul.

If A is the only player to hit the ground and the contact didn't cause B a disadvantage, then it's a perfect example of a no-call...

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by refnrev

__________________________

You're going to use the block signal if he trips the opponent from the back?

Why not? It fits as well or better than any other signal we have.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by zakman2005000

Maybe we are envisioning different scenarios, but if dribbler A1 cuts off a defender, the only contact between them is tangling of feet and A1 is the only player to hit the floor, I can't imagine calling a foul on A1. Now, if A1 isn't the player that is creating the contact, then I agree with you that it's a foul.

Um, lemme see if I got this right. A1 created the contact by cutting off the defender and tangling feet. You can't imagine calling a foul on A1. But if B1 creates the contact, you say that it is a foul? My question is "A foul on who- A1 or the defender?"

Follow-up question--"If you say that the foul is on A1, what's your rationale for giving a foul to a player who did not initiate the contact?

Follow-up follow-up question--If you say that the foul is on B1, what is your rationale for calling a foul on B1 for initiating contact, but you wouldn't call a foul on A1 for initiating contact in the initial scenario?

[zakman2005000]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Um, lemme see if I got this right. A1 created the contact by cutting off the defender and tangling feet. You can't imagine calling a foul on A1. But if B1 creates the contact, you say that it is a foul? My question is "A foul on who- A1 or the defender?"

Defender, when A1 is put at a disadvantage.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Follow-up follow-up question--If you say that the foul is on B1, what is your rationale for calling a foul on B1 for initiating contact, but you wouldn't call a foul on A1 for initiating contact in the initial scenario?

My rationale is that B1 isn't responsible for creating a disadvantage in the initial scenario.

[Jurassic Referee]

I am now officially totally confused.

[Jimgolf]

When I read the thread title, for some reason I thought it would be about Bill Walton.