Just like that
 

Two defenders on the player with the ball. She makes a break for the basket and trips over the foot of one of the defenders. I call a block. Defensive coach says, "How is that a block? You're telling me that if ball handler trips over someone's foot it's a block? How can you call that?"

A couple of plays later, my partner calls the same again on his player. I'm thinking, "Just like that, coach."

He didn't say anything that time to my partner.

Rita

What caused you to call the foul on the defender? Had the defender whose foot got tripped over obtained a legal guarding position? If so, you probably have nothing (other than a lost ball by the offensive player). I have seen officials bail out the trapped offensive player when the player splits the defensive players and trips.

If the tripping defender was moving to get into a legal guarding position when the contact with the foot happened, you probably have a defensive foul. On the other hand, if the defender had obtained a LGP, you probably have nothing.

Please cite a valid rules based justification for this opinion.

In that play, he's stating that if the defender has legal guarding position, and the offensive player trips over his or her feet, we should not bail the offensive player out. It is a somewhat similar situation to where an airborne shooter jumps into a defender, hoping for a call to bail him out and give him two free throws.

Rule 4-27-3.

Well, to justify a possible foul in this situation: 4-23 (describes obtaining a legal guarding position) and 10-6-7 (which states a dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path nor attempt to dribble between two opponents or between an opponent and the boundary, unless the space is such to provide a reasonable chance for him/her to go through without contact).

4-27-1 (the mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul) permits an official to ignore the very slight shoe-to-shoe contact IF the above two situations are true (LGP and dribbler squeezing between two defenders). The offensive player has already lost the ball. Did they really foul the opponent? Quite possibly not.

On the other hand, if the defenders did NOT attain a LGP, the contact with the foot can be considered a trip and penalized as such.

Based on the information I am reading, I have the same question as the coach. What did the defender do wrong?

Peace

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

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.

Omg!!!!
 

They myth has come true. :D

Peace

Or the travel that likely results from the no call. That's usually what happens.

Followed closely by the "Coach, he/she stepped on the defenders foot," explanation!:)

Myth me? :D

M&M was about to start a movement to get you into the Hall of Fame.

Silly fanboys.

Glad to see you back Jurassic.

Ha!

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

I don't get it.:D

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.

I saw his post and had a movement.

Is that the same thing?

Sure, but it's not getting him into the hall, no matter how many times you do it.

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?)

Maybe he'll be like Jim Rice and get in on the last ballot.

(Anything I can do to link him with the Red Sox...) :D

This might be what you're thinking of:

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

Shut up.

Well, at least he verified his identity.

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.

Bob,
I am sure that you will be able to quote this one, but I could not find it. I see that when a SCREENER is setting a screen, the screener must "stay within his/her vertical plane with a stance approximately shoulder width apart, but I could not find that requirement under legal guarding position.

As has been pointed out, a good defensive stance really requires the players feet to be outside the shoulders. Additionally, it would be impossible for a defender stay with the dribbler with this requirement since the offensive ballhandler does not have the same restriction.

But, I have already observed that you are spot on with every rule interpretation I have seen thus far.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

I'm Confused, So What Else Is New ???
 

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.

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

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.

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

I guess we envision a different game.

greater responsibility to avoid contact?
 

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.

Only in certain circumstances, and I don't think they apply in the play being discussed.