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

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 believe this is a "had to be there" (HTBT) play. It's all relative to time, distance, and initiation of contact.

-Josh

Sounds like a no call to me.

imo, can't have a "no call" here....the contact affected the play causing the ball to go out of bounds. gotta have something!

based on what you've described, I'm probably calling a blocking foul. sounds like the defender established legal gaurding position, but did not move to maintain LGP as the offensive player moved. block!

if you don't like the block call, then ask yourself this....did the offensive player create/gain an advantage as the result of his contact w/ the defender? (because that is basically what a charge/offensive foul is, right?...)

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.

Seems to be a lot of contradiction here. The defender is entitled to a spot on the floor. If he was there and did not move, no way is it a blocking foul. Did the offensive player gain an advantage by the contact which he apparently created. No, he simply lost the ball out of bounds. No foul call is necessary.

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.

Wouldn't your logic of "offense caused the contact because the defense didn't move" negate the rule that says if the contact is not in the torso area of the defender the defender is at fault?

HUH????

A defender is NEVER REQUIRED to move to maintain LGP. They have the option of remaining stationary. If they are stationary, they don't need LGP. Any contact with a stationary defender who initially obtained that spot legally can never be a block. It doesn't matter where the contact occurs (torso, side, or elsewhere). If the offensive player wishes to change directions to avoid contact, it is their responsibility to do so. A defender who is legally in a spot has no requirement to get out of the way when the contact will not be sqaure on the torso.

Any advantage lost by the offense was their own fault.

The only calls that are valid are PC or OOB....I'm calling OOB.

What rule is that?

Not entirely true. NFHS 4-23-4 "Guarding an opponent with the ball or a stationary opponent without the ball:
a. No time or distance is required to obtain an initial legal position."

When guarding a (non-airborne) player with the ball, all that is required is for the guard to get to his spot legally first. If he does this, it's his spot. No time or distance required.

There is no legal requirement for a guard to move to maintain LGP. If the guard chooses not to move, he is still entitled to the spot he legally occupied first.

Exactly. If the guard's feet are wider than his shoulders, then he has not gotten to the spot legally first.

NFHS 4-23 "...A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs."

If the guard's feet are wider than his shoulders, he has extended his leg. In this situation it would seem that the extended leg is in the path of the opponent.

Obviously a HTBT, but the principles are pretty clear cut I think.

As always, just my $0.02.

LOL, thanks Camron. I was thinking "How can I call a foul on a guy for NOT moving?" :confused:

Agree.

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

<font size=1>Aw, c'mon, you knew I had to ask.</font size>

Before anyone actually answers this, be sure to read every page of:
http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...situation.html

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

And you just volunteered. :p

I kinda felt like doing some swingin' tonight.

Hey, wait a minute...

I don't know if I can handle an 18 page discussion after all of the A-11 craziness in the football forum. :eek:

BITS...is the part bolded above out of the NFHS book? I'm just curious. You didn't wrap " " around it so I'm wondering if that is your interp or NFHS interp. If the defender is in his spot, not moving and the offensive player hits him(as noted) how is he extending a leg? He was there in his position....

A lot of guys are in LGP with their feet wider than shoulders applying on ball pressure....I've had plenty of PC calls on the perimeter where the guard was plowed through, moving their feet to stay in front of the ball. I wouldn't necessarily consider feet wider than shoulders not beating a guy to the spot or extending a leg.

I'm just having a hard time with your posting....

As posted, I'm probably going with a no-call and ball OOB.

You are correct that a player can have LGP with the feet wider than the shoulders. And the feet being wider than the shoulders doesn't matter if the contact is in the torso...but it does matter if the contact is with the extended limb.

I believe he is only saying that it should be a block (if a foul is warranted) if the feet are wider than the shoulders AND the only contact is with the part of the foot/leg that is beyond the shoulders.

Cam, I agree with what you posted.

As it relates to the OP...I don't see how we can penalize the D if he's stationary, feet wider than shoulders and the contact is created by the ball handler hitting his shoulders even if he had his head and shoulders past the D....which is one major criteria used to determine block/PC. I think the key here is stationary.

Good conversation on this...

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

Well Done zebra44, Much Better Than What zebra43 Had To Offer ...
 

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

I agree with no offensive foul here. I do not agree with a block on a stationary B1. He gained his initial LGP, and did nothing to lose it. Why does he have to move to maintain it? Why can't he stand still and keep it?

Unless B1 is standing in an unnatural position (feet spread further than shoulder width), this is a no-call. If B1 looks like he's about to do the splits, then it's a block.

He's entitled to his spot on the floor, by spreading his feet out he's taking up more than he's entitled to.

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.

Yep, that was what I was saying. :)

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.

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

10-6-1 . . .

You couldn't be more wrong. :(

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.

I think JAR is thinking about the case play, which I can't find at the moment :mad: , 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.

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.:rolleyes:

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.

you're correct - every player is entitled to their own spot on the floor. if you deem that the player that is sitting down on the floor doing stretching exercises has LGP, then there can be no blocking foul. HOWEVER, if you think a player sitting on the floor has established LGP, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn or some swamp land in Florida to sell you......

"a spot on the floor" and "lgp" are not necessarily the same concept.

Having LGP gives the defender additional rights (the right to move...). A stationary player need not have LGP to have a legal postiion and, thus, not be guilty of a blocking foul.