What do we have:

1. B1 not facing the opponent (no LGP)
2. B1 moving into the path of A1 (without LGP)...
3. B1 creating contact with A1 such that it causes A1 to fall.

Not seeing the opponent should have any bearing on the situation.

Also note that A1 got everything but his trailing foot past B1 without any contact. A1 met any reasonable requirement (head/shoulders) for getting through the space.

Most the times when we see this, it doesn't lead to the ball handler falling down....or the ball handler put themselves in a bind all on their own and we don't call it since it didn't create an advantage that wasn't already there. The Kansas player got tripped by a defender moving a foot into his path....and no, I'm not in any way, shape, or form, a Kansas fan.

LGP applies to a player defending the ball, not players moving all over the floor without the ball. The basics of basketball contact rules say each player has their right to a position on the floor. LGP is not apart of this discussion. And this was a loose ball and a Kansas player came from behind his opponent to try to move to a position. If there was contact (which there was not), the Michigan St. player was not responsible for that kind of contact. This was not a screen being set. And a player falling or not may or may not have anything to do with a foul being called. Players fall all the time and no one advocates a foul every time it takes place. If a screen was not set for the Kansas player in such a tight space, there would not have been the chance for contact.

You are right, the Kansas player did get tripped....by his own feet.

Peace

Yeah, #15 met those requirements just before he kicked #2 in the calf; and then #15 kicked himself....
Don't bail out that #15 guy.

I agree and I bleed Kansas Blue and Red.

MTD, Sr.

But he didn't have the position on the floor where the contact took place. If the Michigan player had been still and the guy tripped, it would be totally different. The Michigan guy undeniably extended his foot as the Kansas player's trailing foot came by, and apparently made just enough contact to cause the trip.

Michigan State player stepped away.
Kansas guy caused contact from behind.

Once again, the Kansas player was coming from behind another moving player.

The MSU player did not try to stop the movement of the Kansas player. They both were going in the same direction and if anyone was responsible for falling, it was the Kansas player. I guess I have been missing a lot of fouls on players that run into them. Then again, I am still waiting for the angle that shows there was contact. I still have not seen any. And even if there was contact, you cannot have a foul that the Lead should call that people cannot even agree with. Long way to get a "debatable" call for the Lead official. And this is the major point of all of this, not whether there was contact or no.

Peace

These are totally irrelevant to the situation.

This is not true.


This is debatable.

Jeff,

You talk all the time about officials at that level and how they might be better than some on here.
Do you officiate at that level? How many on here that disagree with the call officiate at the D1 level?
I really am flabbergasted that anyone who looks at that video cannot see the contact that causes the fall - whether or not you believe it's a foul.
You seem to have trouble listening to any viewpoint on most things other than your own. It really is difficult to learn anything while lacking that ability.

No I do not work D1 and I never claimed to. And I never suggested that your opinion of these play has anything to do with what level you work. This was a play that if you work college ball, would be considered incorrect mechanically unless you are 100% right.

That means that your partners on the play pass (or make the call if that is appropriate) on the play, you better not have any doubt what should have been called.

And most of my college games are with college officials and if you listen to them, I and many others (cannot speak for those here) are just as good as they are, they got a break at the right time and that is why they are there.

There is obviously doubt and we even have people on each side do not even agree on the circumstances of the play. If the Trail would have called this, then we would be having a different discussion or at least this would have gone in another direction.

Actually the Kansas player's leg running into the other is the reason the player fell. And when Kansas player fell, the MSU player closest too him was not the player everyone accused of "causing" the contact on your side of this argument.

That is funny. I have to agree with you to be able to listen. :rolleyes: Forget the fact that I am not the only one that feels the way that I do about the play and I watched not only what happen on my DVR and on the NCAA OnDemand (high definition feed, better than the YouTube version and more angles)

Is the reason you are trying to get personal now is you are not confident in your position? Maybe? ;)

Peace

Yes, it is debatable and that is the point. ;)

Peace

Triping, Or Being Tripped, But It's Academic, Because There Was No Observable Contact
 

#2, for whatever reason, took a step slightly backward, and slightly to his right, and if this were a block charge situation, and if there was contact, which I have yet to observe on any replay, this would be a blocking foul, which it isn't, because I still can't see any contact. If there was contact here, and that's a big if from any angle that I've seen, this would be a case of a player being tripped, not a player tripping over a leg that was already there.

IMHO, the KU player tried to bring his right foot up and over the MSU player's leg and ended up tripping himself. I think I know why the lead thought he needed to come get it (absolute) but in this case IMHO he was wrong.

If there was contact (which I have yet to see anything otherwise), it would have been incidental at best in my opinion. The player fell because his leg hit is other leg, not because of any assumed contact.

Peace

Let's try and think of this from the lead's angle. He was no doubt doubling the sideline on the play as a lot of supervisors want you to do (otherwise why would he be looking there and that is another discussion). He sees a Kansas player break towards the ball. He sees #2's leg extend into the path of the runner. He sees the runner's feet and sees one foot move unnaturally into the other and then the player ens up on the floor. I agree he went a long way to get the call. However, as I said earlier, there was a whole lot of action moving toward the trail.

Also, as we all know but few like to admit, a lot of officials peek and that is not always bad. In this situation, however, he may have been looking up the line. A very good friend of mine who got on staff this year in the Big East told me today if there was nothing going on on the paint, he's been told the lead better be helping from the backside on out of bounds plays from the sideline. My friend also said while he personally may have laid off the call, he can absolutely justify the lead going and getting it because it was an out of bounds play on the sideline with a lot of stuff going on and players leaving lead's area toward the trail's area. He told me it has been made clear to him the lead and the C have to be looking to help until the ball is established inbounds. On this play, it wasn't in yet and from the lead's view, I bet it sure looked like #2 tripped the KU player. I'm sure someone will chime in with if you only think, don't put air in the whistle but all I ask is try to visualize the play from lead's angle.