Just like that

[deecee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

Bob, however in basketball a proper defensive stance the foot will ALWAYS be outside the shoulder. I dont see how a defensive player can get low to play defense and keep his whole body within his shoulder. Physically impossible.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by deecee

Bob, however in basketball a proper defensive stance the foot will ALWAYS be outside the shoulder. I dont see how a defensive player can get low to play defense and keep his whole body within his shoulder. Physically impossible.

That's fine, but don't forget the rule on guarding (4-23-1): "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have LGP if contact occurs."

Iirc, there was an interp that stated the defender's legs could only be shoulder's width apart. (Or was it a college interp?)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

That's fine, but don't forget the rule on guarding (4-23-1): "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have LGP if contact occurs."

Iirc, there was an interp that stated the defender's legs could only be shoulder's width apart. (Or was it a college interp?)

This might be what you're thinking of:

From the POE's in last year's NFHS rule book:
POE#3-DISPLACEMENT-(B): "A legal screener must be stationary prior to contact within his/her vertical plane(hands, arms, legs and feet no more than shoulder width apart).

[deecee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

That's fine, but don't forget the rule on guarding (4-23-1): "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have LGP if contact occurs."

Iirc, there was an interp that stated the defender's legs could only be shoulder's width apart. (Or was it a college interp?)

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.

[M&M Guy]

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.

You might want to double-check the Old One's post on last year's POE.

It doesn't make playing defense impossible. If the player can play better defense by standing on thier head, more power to them. They just have to be aware of the rules on guarding and who would be more responsible for contact if and when it occurs.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

You might want to double-check the Old One's post on last year's POE.

It doesn't make playing defense impossible. If the player can play better defense by standing on thier head, more power to them. They just have to be aware of the rules on guarding and who would be more responsible for contact if and when it occurs.

The old ones POE pertained to legal screen.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by deecee

The old ones POE pertained to legal screen.

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.

[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 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.