Just like that

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

True. But sometimes the defender's foot is outside the shoulders so the "trip" is the proper call.

I do not have the interp to confirm this, but doesn't it require the offensive player to have his torso past the defender. IOW, if it is not torso-to-torso contact and the defender's legs are wider than shoulder width it would indeed be a trip.

But on the other hand, if the offensive player just leaned to one side to avoid torso-to-torso contact but his torso was not past the defender, it would be a block.

Am I getting this right?

[mick]

Originally Posted by deecee

I agree -- I am just talking about the defender playing on ball defense -- there is no mention of shoulder width -- as that would make playing defense impossible on ball.

I played with a wide stance, as you suggest.
When the ball when to my right, I went to the right.
When the ball went to my left, I went to my left.

When the low defender is moving his feet, he is less apt to be called for tripping, than if he just left 'em out there.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Right, but that same theory applies to guarding as well. I posted the rule on guarding, and the fact that the player cannot extend a leg into the path of the player. The POE just clarifies where "extending" starts (outside shoulder width).

Remember, it doesn't say the player cannot have their feet out there, just that they no longer are considered to have LGP and are thus more reponsible if contact occurs.

M&M, if you show me a defender who plays with his feet shoulder width apart, I'd be willing to bet he carries a clip board, stat sheet and pencil during the game.

Defenders NEVER play with their feet shoulder width apart. If a player is in a good defensive stance (feet about six to twelve inches outside the shoulders), has both feet FLAT ON THE FLOOR, is setting a solid trap with a teammate as the dribbler attempts to squeeze in between, I don't see how an official can call a trip on the defender (except for the OP team in the post IF this is what, indeed, happened). If the defender sticks his leg out into the path of the defender and the contact is made with the leg, I am OK with the block call. But, if the defender's feet are flat on the floor and he is assuming a good defensive stance and the ballhandler trips over the stationary foot, I don't see how this can be a foul on the defense.

[mick]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Defenders NEVER play with their feet shoulder width apart.

...Unless they're attempting to take one for the team.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Defenders NEVER play with their feet shoulder width apart. If a player is in a good defensive stance (feet about six to twelve inches outside the shoulders), has both feet FLAT ON THE FLOOR, is setting a solid trap with a teammate as the dribbler attempts to squeeze in between, I don't see how an official can call a trip on the defender (except for the OP team in the post IF this is what, indeed, happened). If the defender sticks his leg out into the path of the defender and the contact is made with the leg, I am OK with the block call. But, if the defender's feet are flat on the floor and he is assuming a good defensive stance and the ballhandler trips over the stationary foot, I don't see how this can be a foul on the defense.

I would generally agree with this -- and my earlier "shoulder width" comment was meant to be "approximately." Perhaps better would be "elbow width" when in a deefensive stance.

And, just like the player who stands with the feet shoulder width apart, there are thosw who stand (or get caught in) a stance that's too wide -- and that becomes a block (in my game) if the offense trips over that defender's foot.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The principle of verticality is applicable to the defender.
1)Rule 4-45-1-"Legal guarding position must be obtained initially and movement thereafter must be legal."
2) Rule 4-45-5- "the offensive player whether on the floor or airborne may NOT "clear out" or cause contact within the defender's vertical plane which is a foul.
3) Rule 4-45-6-"The defender may may not "belly up" or use the lower part of the body or arms to cause contact OUTSIDE his her vertical plane which is a foul"

You only have 2 options if the defender has LGP and the dribbler trips over the foot of that defender...(1) a cheap player control foul, or (2) no call.

JR:

Where have you been? You have been conspicuous by your absence. Your disappearence has been the subject of many conspiracy theories and a documentary was being planed for the Discovery Channel.

Welcome back.

MTD, Sr.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by mick

...Unless they're attempting to take one for the team.

Mick, you are absolutely right. But, in most of these cases, a blocking foul is the result since the "skinny as a stick" defender is so easy for the offensive player to slide around. The defender then tries to lean into the path of the offensive player.

I see far more PC fouls being drawn by the defender in a good solid stance, obtaining a legal guarding position and maintaining that position until the torso-to-torso contact.

[mick]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

I see far more PC fouls being drawn by the defender in a good solid stance, obtaining a legal guarding position and maintaining that position until the torso-to-torso contact.

Agreed.
Solid, wide stance up top, but shoulder-width stance in the paint.

[BillyMac]

I have always been of the opinion that there is a difference between tripping, and being tripped.

That said, what if a player is in legal guarding position, and has their feet wider than their shoulders, and, for sake of argument, has obtained that position on the court, and remains in that position for, let's say, oh, ten seconds, motionless, and then a dribbler tries to dribble past this motionless defender and trips over the defender's leg. I have a no call. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Please.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I have always been of the opinion that there is a difference between tripping, and being tripped.

That said, what if a player is in legal guarding position, and has their feet wider than their shoulders, and, for sake of argument, has obtained that position on the court, and remains in that position for, let's say, oh, ten seconds, motionless, and then a dribbler tries to dribble past this motionless defender and trips over the defender's leg. I have a no call. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Please.

How much wider than the shoulders? I think that matters.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I have always been of the opinion that there is a difference between tripping, and being tripped.

That said, what if a player is in legal guarding position, and has their feet wider than their shoulders, and, for sake of argument, has obtained that position on the court, and remains in that position for, let's say, oh, ten seconds, motionless, and then a dribbler tries to dribble past this motionless defender and trips over the defender's leg. I have a no call. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Please.

Legs extended wider than a "normal stance"....I have a block. The amount of time the player is there is irrelevant.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by mick

Agreed.
Solid, wide stance up top, but shoulder-width stance in the paint.

You show me a post player whose feet are "shoulder width apart stance in the paint" and I will show you a bench warmer. There is NO WAY a post defender can have his feet that close together -- especially since the offensive post man with his back to him is wider than that!!! If a post defender has his feet shoulder width apart, he will get drop-stepped to death.

If a defensive player is in a good solid stance -- if the defender is too wide, he will have no mobility and the offensive player will easily get around him even if the offensive player has to lift a foot over the defender to do it -- his feet will be wider than shoulder width apart.

If you doubt this, watch a televised high school or college game for a few minutes. Skinny-as-a-stick defenders will not be anywhere to be found -- with the possible exception of a defensive perimeter player not accustomed to playing down there.

[mick]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

You show me a post player whose feet are "shoulder width apart stance in the paint" and I will show you a bench warmer. There is NO WAY a post defender can have his feet that close together -- especially since the offensive post man with his back to him is wider than that!!! If a post defender has his feet shoulder width apart, he will get drop-stepped to death.

Sorry, Coach.
I was envisioning a defender legally playing straight up and being protected by the rules.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by mick

Sorry, Coach.
I was envisioning a defender legally playing straight up and being protected by the rules.

I guess we envision a different game.

[OHBBREF]

Does not the greater responsibility to avoid contact fall upon the player with the ball?
Rule 10
section 6 contact
ART. 2 . . . A dribbler shall not charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path nor attempt to dribble between two opponents or between an opponent and a boundary, unless the space is such as to provide a reasonable chance for him or her to go through without contact. If a dribbler, without contact, sufficiently passes an opponent to have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent, the greater responsibility for subsequent contact is on the opponent. If a dribbler in his/her progress is moving in a straight-line path, he/she may not be crowded out of that path, but if an opponent is able to legally obtain a defensive position in that path, the dribbler must avoid contact by changing direction or ending his/her dribble. The dribbler should not be permitted additional rights in executing a jump try for goal, pivoting, feinting or in starting a dribble.