I've been lucky in that I've only experienced two athletic injuries in my life. One was because this foul wasn't called. The official didn't believe that this is a foul, because the contact was "so minor". In the end, the offender backed me down, jumped up for a turn-around jumper, came down oddly, and landed on my ankle. Crutches for 3 weeks.

Call the foul! It's quite an easy call.

Your keyboard is broken btw. All sorts of type sizes coming out of it.

POE 3 in the 2007-08 rule book:

<b><u>3. DISPLACEMENT:</u></b>
<i>Displacement is a foul and must be called.</i>
<b>A. POST PLAY.</b> <i>When a player dislodges an opponent from an established position by pushing or "backing in", it is a foul."</i>

Couldn't be clearer. The exact same POE has been put in the rulebook several times recently. Now we know why.

And I just saw these guys outside my window!!! What's next - Billy Packer actually saying something intelligent? Naw - that's way too impossible.

http://fenixrysing.files.wordpress.c...lying_pigs.jpg

I put in a work order...the IT department told me to STFU. How rude!!

Now we know where Dan works. I'd have never guessed it.

STFU

Well, then. I stand corrected.

Only took him 5 minutes to type all that! He's getting good with all this new-fangled computery stuff.:D

Great, now I gotta wipe the diet pepsi off my screen yet again...

I've got to (reluctantly) point out the coach might actually be somewhat smart in trying this tactic. First off, he is absolutely correct in asking for a foul initially on the backing down. It's not only a POE with the NFHS, but it's also a POE at the NCAA-W level. (I'm not sure about NCAA-M, but it wouldn't surprise me.) But I'm also not entirely convinced having his player take that stance is unsporting. In NFHS, B1 is entitled to a spot on the floor, whether standing or lying down. If B1 takes that position after A1 receives the ball, there are no time and distance in screening requirements. If B1 were to trip and go down, then A1 falls over B1, wouldn't we (probably) call travelling? Why would we call a T if B1 takes the same position intentionally? Why do penalize B for taking a legal position, and A is not aware of the position of their defender?

Ok, I agree it's not really a "basketball play", and I wouldn't argue too strenuously if a partner called a T. But I'm still impressed the coach knew enough about the rules to give it a shot.

My first thought is an (leaving aside the valid point regarding the apparently missed PC calls) intentional foul. B1 is intentionally tripping A1.

That said, I understand the point about the rule not really having a provision for a foul here. B1 is stationary and not holding an illegal position. My only thought is the "purpose and intent" clause, not allowing a player to gain an unfair advantage not intended by the rules. I can't help but think of this move as an unfair tactic gaining an unfair advantage by tripping a "blind" opponent.

I'm still not sure my initial thought is correct.

And I don't entirely disagree with your line of thinking; it's not a basketball play. However, B1 is not moving, and is certainly not initiating the contact, given the play we are discussing. It's another point entirely if B1 were to slide or roll into the back of A1's legs.

Why am I getting a sense of deja vu here?

Yeah, me too.

Personally, I wouldn't deem the action "unsporting". Instead, I'd call it "illegal", using the concept outlined in FED rule 10-6-1--<i>"A player shall not hold, push charge, <b>TRIP</b> or impede the progress of an opponent by.... bending his/her body into other than a normal position, nor <b>use any rough tactics</b>."</i> Going to the floor like that is not a normal position and it sureasheck is "rough tactics" to deliberately trip an opponent. That's close enough for me.

The other point is that I don't think that you can call a "T". It would have to be a personal foul of some kind, most likely an intentional personal foul.

My take on it......intentional personal foul. But I sureasheck ain't ever gonna make a call like that if I've let the post player get away with forcefully pushing/bouncing a defender off a legal position. That's called adding insult to injury.

Thoughts?