Just like that

[Rita C]

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

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Rita C

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.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

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.

[ajs8207]

Originally Posted by justacoach

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.

[ga314ref]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Please cite a valid rules based justification for this opinion.

Rule 4-27-3.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Please cite a valid rules based justification for this opinion.

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.

[JRutledge]

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

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Please cite a valid rules based justification for this opinion.

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.

[JRutledge]

They myth has come true.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The myth has come true.

Peace

Myth me?

[Rich]

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.

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

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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

[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.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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.