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

[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".

[jdmara]

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

-Josh

[just another ref]

Sounds like a no call to me.

[jeffpea]

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?...)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

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?...)

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.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

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?...)

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

HUH????

A defender is NEVER REQUIRED to move to maintain LGP.

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

Any advantage lost by the offense was their own fault.

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

Agree.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

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?...)

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.

[JugglingReferee]

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".

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Tripping over someone's foot is likely because that foot is outside the cylinder that each person is entitled to. ..... possible foot-outside-the-cylinder contact caused a block (more likely).

If the contact was the illegal foot position, I have a blocking foul.

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

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

10-6-1 . . .

A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

You couldn't be more wrong.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

10-6-1 . . .

A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

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.

[just another ref]

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.

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.

[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?