What's the call in this instance.....

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

We've got a rope
We've got a tree
All we need is a
Referee.

And you just volunteered.

I kinda felt like doing some swingin' tonight.

Hey, wait a minute...

[zebra44]

I have a no call. The way I view it, there is a difference between tripping and being tripped. JMHO.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by zebra44

There is a difference between tripping, and being tripped.

Rookie officials, please make a note of this statement. Easy to understand, simple, and a pretty good interpretation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

What if one of the defender's feet was OOB?

Aw, c'mon, you knew I had to ask.

Before anyone actually answers this, be sure to read every page of:
Block / Charge Situation

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

We've got a rope
We've got a tree
All we need is a
Referee.

And you just volunteered.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I kinda felt like doing some swingin' tonight.

Hey, wait a minute...

Sheesh! I have my first game of the season (first game since early January), and you guys go and have fun like this? I'm shocked!

BTW, I'm sticking with a no-call followed by an OOB call.

[amusedofficial]

Geez. After months of lurking I actually had to register on this one, to ask two questions.

1. What rule refers to "the cylinder that each person is entitled to" This sounds like ESPN-speak.

2. Similiarly, I am unable to find "the rule that says if the contact is not in the torso area of the defender the defender is at fault"

Kind of eerie that a site that regularly posts "misunderstood rules" would see postings from people who should know better inventing rules that aren't in the book. But then perhaps the "torso rule" and the "cylinder rule" are on the same page as "reach" and "over the back" fouls, and I haven't gotten to that page yet.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

Geez. After months of lurking I actually had to register on this one, to ask two questions.

1. What rule refers to "the cylinder that each person is entitled to" This sounds like ESPN-speak.

2. Similiarly, I am unable to find "the rule that says if the contact is not in the torso area of the defender the defender is at fault"

1. Not a rule, a concept. BITS quotes the basis from 4-23; a player does not have legal position if his foot is extended, his arm is extended, etc, no matter how long he's held it there. It's just like if B1 had been standing in the lane with his arms held out straight to the sides since February; if A1 comes in and tries to run by B1 only to catch an arm in the neck, it's a foul on B1 no matter how long he's held the pose.
2. Not a rule, but a rule of thumb; not applicable to a stationary defender who is standing in a legal position. Completely applicable (as a rule of thumb) to a moving defender with LGP; and definitely the rule if a the contact is with an extended limb.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

1. What rule refers to "the cylinder that each person is entitled to" This sounds like ESPN-speak.

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.

[Juulie Downs]

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....

[CoachP]

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by CoachP

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.

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".

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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".

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

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".

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?

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

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....

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