the terminology is pretty bad but the referece IMO would be toward "the principle of verticality"


Also everyone seems to be missing the obvious: WHO INITIATED THE CONTACT?

Even if the contact is torso to torso, it doesn't have to be PC if the Defender moved to the offensive player, or if the offensive player bowls over a defender who is not stationary it doesn't have to be a block.

The player initiating the contact is the one held liable in most cases.

I got nothing on this contact - whistle the ball OOB and we go the other way.

It seems to me it depends on HOW far apart the defender's legs/feet were. If he was just standing there and his feet were 2 cm wider than his shoulders, well, that's not what I call an "extended limb". Also, I wonder what angle is included in all the various sentences. If his feet point at an angle away from the body, the toes might be farther apart than the width of the shoulders. And that kind of position might be easier to trip over. But is that a blocking foul? Hmm....

Why should the offense get the advantage? He/she is not standing there like a beanpole with feet shoulder width apart driving to the basket. Their feet are farther than shoulder width apart and that's normal.

If the defender obtained that spot legally, and is playing good defense: butt down, knees bent, back straight... their feet will almost always naturally be at LEAST shoulder width apart.

I agree with this. Also, I think 10-6-1 was written with regard to a player actively guarding someone. Even a defender who has achieved LGP may be called for a foul if he "impedes the progress of an opponent by extending" something. My point was that this is not an automatic call.

A1 is guarded by B1. A1 fools B1 with a crossover dribble from his left to right and reverses direction. B1 starts to follow and quickly stops but winds up with his left leg splayed out behind him. A1 trips over B1's left foot, which has not moved in the last several seconds. Is this a blocking foul?

Somebody has already pointed out that the width of the feet doesn't matter unless the contact is on the "extended limb". If the contact is elsewhere on the defender, the position of the feet is irrelevant. If a defender is "playing good defense" he's going to be moving to maintain position, and isn't too likely to be in a position to be called for this. Where the defender gets into trouble is when he gets beat because he didn't move quickly enough. In that case, if the offensive player is trying to go by the defender, and the defender's leg is out wide and trips the offensive player, that ain't good defense.

To be honest, the majority of the time I see the width of the feet being an issue is on screens where the screener tries to make himself "bigger".

Juulie, you have change my outlook on this situation with the aboved statement.

The reason that you can't find that case play ruling is that it has been removed from the books. Try searching some old threads on this forum if you want to see it.
If I recall correctly, the play actually says that the defender went for a steal and missed. That is why he is temporarily lying on the floor. That is a natural position as it was a result of normal action for the game of basketball, and therefore, he isn't to be penalized under NFHS rules.

JAR, I must apologize for being snide in my post to you. I occasionally get cranky and my Jurassic side comes out. Different things have been known to set me off. It could be a poster making a declarative statement that when read in a straight-forward manner is emphatically incorrect or it could be someone taking the pulse of the forum following the officiating of a state championship football game by a certain member. ;)
I'll now attempt to banish my inner demon back to the location of one of our recently departed, yet still esteemed members.

You were snide?? Say it ain't so!

Oh, yeah, now I remember.

Forget about it. You help to keep me humble.

I agree with most of what you said...and I also believe, as most have said, HTBT. And the defense "usually" is beat.

But the screening rules mention only 2 requirements hands and arms close to body and stationary. I find nothing that says how far the feet can be apart....as long as she is stationary.

One thing I am working on this year is having the screeners set backwards screens. Meaning the screener faces away from her teammate she is screening. It forces A1 to USE A2's screen and keeps A2 from seeing the path of B1 and being tempted to stick out the hip, leg.

4-40-2d: "...stance approximately shoulder width apart."

Thanks Bob....lemme rephrase.....above red. Anybody seen my crow?

:o

when does legal guarding position end?

I'm guessing you had no call and crowd/coach and or partners disagreed.

Had to be there as you describe it, it's a no call from me.

"Tripping over someone's foot is likely because that foot is outside the cylinder that each person is entitled to"

That's a new one on me...........any reference to back that up?

I was not talking about legal guarding position here. To achieve and maintain legal guarding position, the player basically may not extend any body part into the path of the opponent.

The point was that each player is entitled to his own spot on the floor. If a player chooses to sit down on the floor and do stretching exercises, then an opponent comes along and trips over him 10 seconds later, I would be hard pressed to call this a blocking foul.