"That's A Trip" (Stevie Wonder 2009)
 

If there was contact, which I still don't see, it is possible that the lead saw #2 move into the ball handler's path too late, after he passed #2, which may have led to the ball handler tripping, and falling into the backcourt. To me, if it happened that way, that's illegal contact that put the ball handler at a disadvantage, and if I'm the lead, and I'm 100% sure that this contact happened, then I'm calling it, especially if Stevie Wonder is up in the 50th row yelling. "That's a trip".

I still don't see the contact, legal, or illegal, and I've watched the tape several times.

You make a good point and one which I would agree with it the defender simply maintained his normal stance, but in this play he took a long stride to his left by extending his left leg out past the frame of his shoulders. IMO that put his leg out there in an illegal position. It doesn't matter whether he did it with knowledge of where the opponent was or not.

We know that a player is not allowed to extend his arms or legs into the path of an opponent. If contact occurs under those circumstances, that player must bear the responsibility for the contact. That's why I think that this play was a foul.

Morgan, #2.

Thank You ...
 

Thanks.

If there's only one thing that's certain on this play, it is that nobody ran up anybody's back.:rolleyes:

Agreed, great call and very tough for trail to catch this. All about teamwork.

Or that nobody stuck out their leg. ;)

Peace

Let's Do The Hokey Pokey ...
 

#2 definitely stuck out his leg, I just don't think that there was any contact, at least from our camera angle, which was pretty close to the same angle that the trail had on this play.

I see four basic positions so far, all based on the same video clip.

1. MSU #2 did not stick out his foot, no contact, no foul
2. MSU #2 did stick out his foot, no contact, no foul
3. MSU #2 did stick out his foot, contact with KU player, no foul
4. MSU #2 did stick out his foot, contact with KU player, foul

If I were supervisor, the only two of these that I would not accept would be options 1 and 3. For option 1, I think I see the foot clearly out past the shoulder width of MSU #2.

For option 3: the idea that the contact was incidental goes against my training: incidental contact by definition does not significantly affect play. The KU player went to the floor, but he kept his dribble, so I guess somebody might want to make this case, but we've all seen touch fouls called that affected the play less than this contact.

The contact might have been accidental, sure, but we call accidental contact fouls all the time. The KU player did not intentionally run into his leg (and miss or nearly miss?), and to the worry that this ruling would overburden the defense I would reply: if you don't want to risk being called for an accidental trip, keep your feet under your body. IMO, option 3 would be the hardest to sell to a supervisor.

That leaves options 2 and 4, the choice between which hinges on whether there was contact. I can't tell from the video. If I were the supervisor, I'd want to hear what L had to say about the call.

Say what??

Where is that written as a part of the definition of incidental contact??

Example - defender pressuring the ball handler coming up the court. A5 sets a screen at midcourt. Defender never sees the screen and runs into A5 hard. A5 is bigger and just stands there, but little defender ends up sprawled on floor as ball handler proceeds to attack the basket with his/her dribble. You're going to call a foul because - even though it was incidental contact - it affected the play as they are now playing 5 on 4??

IMO, this thinking was probably exactly what the L on the OP had going through his mind as he blew the whistle. And he was wrong - again, JMO.

If you're asking where the rules define 'incidental contact', you know of course that the rules don't define it. I assume that you're not asking for a dictionary definition. Do you use an alternative definition that's significantly different?

You also know that judging whether contact "significantly affects the play" is exactly what we're paid to do. It's a test we apply to borderline cases of contact to determine whether the contact constitutes a foul.

As for your case, if the screen were legal, then the question of whether the contact is incidental does not arise. By judging that the screen is legal, you've already answered the question of the legality of the contact.

I guess I don't see the problem.

Of course!! :rolleyes:

NCAA 4-40.
NFHS 4-27.

Oops. :D

Well, of course I meant other than rule 4. :o

Good call!

At first view I wondered what the call was for....seemed odd. And even on first replay, I thought he tripped on his own foot. On additional replay, I saw that that #2 stepped into the cutter's path and clipped is leg, ultimately causing the fall. That "little" clip was the reason for the fall, and clearly was an advantage, and was #2 was certainly ont in an LGP on the cutter when he moved his foot into the cutter's path. It took a few steps to materialize but there was a foul. The fact that the space was tight didn't give #2 the right to make it tighter by extending his foot into the path of the cutter.

I felt the lead was going to pass on the call until it led to the fall. And I felt it was as much in the lead's primary as anything else...the player came from his area and leaving no one else to look at in that space, the lead looked at the convergence of the players from the backside...and angle the trail didn't have. Plus the point of the clip/trip was a long way from where the fall occurred....perhaps even below the FT line.

Moving toward the ball is not sticking your leg out. And the Kansas player did come from behind the MSU player. If there was contact, I am not sure how in the heck the MSU player is responsible. If that is a foul, we do not call a lot of fouls like this. I do not even think he saw the player going after the ball. The Kansas player was trying to get by him.

Peace