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

[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.

[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?

[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".

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I think JAR is thinking about the case play, which I can't find at the moment , that says a player who lying on the floor is entitled to that spot and if the dribbler trips over him, it's not a foul on the defender.

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.

Originally Posted by just another ref

That was the general idea. Someone referred to the cylinder each player was entitled to and not having a foot outside the shoulder. I was saying that assuming any position does not necessarily make one guilty of the foul. Defender hustling back slips and goes down. Offensive player behind him trips over his extended limb. This is not a blocking foul. Nevada is trying to help me understand things, every chance he gets.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

JAR, I must apologize for being snide in my post to you.

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

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Do you even read the rules before you shoot your mouth off?

Oh, yeah, now I remember.

Forget about it. You help to keep me humble.

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CoachP

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.

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

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

Originally Posted by CoachP

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 in my 2003-2004 rule book in my work drawer 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.

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

[jeffpea]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If the defender is there minding his own business, he can be doing the splits, and if he does not move, it isn't a blocking foul.

when does legal guarding position end?

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by dsimp8

A1 steals the ball in the backcourt and races to the other end. B1 gets to the elbow and plants his feet and doesn't move. A1 lowers his head and brushes B1 and trips over B1's left foot. B1 never moves as A1 falls to the floor and loses the ball out of bounds. Do you have a charge or "no call"? I say "no call".

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.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Tripping over someone's foot is likely because that foot is outside the cylinder that each person is entitled to. Brushing an opponent likely means that contact was on the outside edge of the shoulder. You would have to decide if the contact on the shoulder warrants a PC foul (highly unlikely), or the possible foot-outside-the-cylinder contact caused a block (more likely).

In the end, it sounds like we had to be there, but a no call could be likely as well. Whenever someone goes to the ground, I believe that the officials must know how that happened. Since A1 went to the floor, is was either because of B1's legal body position, or B1's illegal foot position.

If the contact was the legal body position, I have a no call. If the contact was the illegal foot position, I have a blocking foul.

"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?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

when does legal guarding position end?

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.