I usually have none.

Oh, wait, you're talking about the subject at hand? I agree it shouldn't be a T. I'm just not convinced it can be a foul, either common or intentional, as the player is stationary and not the one initiating contact, especially given the context of the original play. A1 has been backing down B1 in earlier plays, so if A1 is expecting to do the same thing and falls over a stationary B1, I can't see how B1 is responsible for the contact. What specifically is B1 doing that would be considered "illegal"? Tripping is usually an active act, such as sticking a leg or arm out in front of a moving player. Also, how can sitting there motionless be considered rough play? It just seems hard to pick out a good, legitimate reason for calling a foul in this case, even though I think one could be called.

If a defensive player was standing stationary but leaning their torso out to their left side with their arms straight out to their sides, and an offensive player driving for a basket runs into the defensive player's outsretched arm and/or shoulder, would you call a blocking foul even if the defensive player was stationary? What's the difference? This clearly falls under 'bending his/her body into other than a normal position'.

Then anytime a player is on the floor, that player is responsible for contact, even if that player is stationary, only because it's not a "normal" position?

No. The difference is intentionally putting yourself in an illegal position that disrupts an opponent's ability to get where they want to go. Someone laying on the floor after having fallen did not put themselves in that position intentionally. But if you get down on your hands and knees behind an offensive player, for the purpose of having them trip over you (what other purpose could it be - looking for a contact lens?), then that's a foul.

For the record, I'd like to note that Dan's post is nasty. ;)

I agree with the record.

As an aside, McHale learned the pulling the chair out manuever from Rick Mahorn who did it to either Parish or McHale on successive trips down the floor. It was hilarious. [Maybe not if you liked the Celtics, but I am not in that camp.]

Where in the rules does it describe the difference between "intentionally" being in that position, vs. "unintentional"? Are you saying if a player "unintentionally" puts themselves in that position, they aren't responsible for the foul? Where in the rules does it say that? Where in the rules does it say being on your hands and knees is an "illegal position"? What about the statement in 4-23-1 that says, "Every player is entitled to a spot on the court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent." B1 certainly meets that criteria. B1 is perfectly still, and A1 initiates the contact by backing into B1. If A1 trips over B1's outstretched legs or arms, I can use that as a basis for a foul. But if A1 simply trips over B1's torso, what rule basis do I have for calling a foul on B1? Why wouldn't I call a travel on A1 (assuming A1 held onto the ball while falling)?

Look, I know it don't feel right. But unless someone can come up with a good rule reference, I can't see justification for calling a foul on B1. Again, kudos to the coach for coming up with this scenario.

There, I fixed it for you...just another comment from the peanut gallery!!:D

Is this where I'm supposed to clap?

I hope so, because I am.

FED rule 10-6-1--"A player shall not hold, push charge, TRIP or impede the progress of an opponent by.... bending his/her body into other than a normal position, nor use any rough tactics."

Yup, to me, this qualifies as a "rough tactic" as it is obviously designed to trip A1.

Well, first off, B1 is not using any rough tactics because they are motionless. Secondly, can you give me the rule definition of "normal position"? And usually the intent of this rule is to penalize contact initiated by the player. I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, I just do not want to read something into a rule that wasn't intended. That leads to calling things based on my feelings, rather than how the rules intended.

In the parallel thread, I'm kind of leaning towards issuing the unsporting T, for the reasons supplied. I think it does fall under the same intent as the penalty for the "barking dog" play, which also was not "illegal" under any rule, but was determined to be a non-basketball play and penalized as such.

Ultimately for me, it's no different than sticking out your leg to purposely trip someone. I am not struggling at all to see this play as a foul on the defender.

I think it is a rough tactic, as it is purposefully tripping a player. A player may stick his leg out and be completely motionless when the opponent hits the leg and falls on his face. Motion at the point of contact is not required for a rough tactic.
Secondly, I think putting oneself into an odd position (sticking a leg out, leaning the torso to the side, getting on hands and knees in the OP) is initiating contact. The latter is also deceptive and rough.
Third, I think the rules allow for a bit of leeway here, as they specifically prohibit the gaining of an advantage not intended by the rules. I'm pretty sure getting this travel call (or a PC) would fit into the category of unintended advantages.

That said, I have no problem with the T. The barking dog doesn't involve any contact, so T is your only real option. With this non-basketball play, there is contact, therefore allowing either a blocking foul or an intentional foul. Personally, I like the intentional option in most cases. In the OP, I prefer the common foul; since as has been determined by consensus, the whole problem would have likely been avoided had a PC or two been rightly called earlier on A1.