Stay out of my pond!

[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.

[mbyron]

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If you're asking where the rules define 'incidental contact', you know of course that the rules don't define it.

Of course!!

NCAA 4-40.
NFHS 4-27.

Oops.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The basics of basketball contact rules say each player has their right to a position on the floor.

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.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

#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.

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

[walter]

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.