Stay out of my pond!

[BillyMac]

From the videos posted, I don't see any contact at all, legal, or illegal. The ball handler tripped himself.

If the lead had a better angle than the trail, and than the cameras, and saw some contact, then I have no problem with him making the call because the contact that he saw certainly put the ball handler at a disadvantage, he fell, and went into the backcourt. I just hope that he didn't guess from the lead.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

From the videos posted, I don't see any contact at all, legal, or illegal. The ball handler tripped himself.

If the lead had a better angle than the trail, and than the cameras, and saw some contact, then I have no problem with him making the call because the contact that he saw certainly put the ball handler at a disadvantage, he fell, and went into the backcourt. I just hope that he didn't guess from the lead.

Even if there was contact (which I clearly have not seen any by replays), then I still do not see how this is a foul. The Kansas player ran up the back of the MSU player. If that is a foul, then we miss a lot of fouls in the game of basketball. Other than him falling, nothing the MSU player did or would have done was illegal.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Even if there was contact (which I clearly have not seen any by replays), then I still do not see how this is a foul. The Kansas player ran up the back of the MSU player. If that is a foul, then we miss a lot of fouls in the game of basketball. Other than him falling, nothing the MSU player did or would have done was illegal.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The Kansas player ran up the back of the MSU player.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

Or that nobody stuck out their leg.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Or that nobody stuck out their leg.

#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.

[mbyron]

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by mbyron

incidental contact by definition does not significantly affect play.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

#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.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

#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.