Just a question....
 

Ball's in transition, near the back of the pack of players, dribbler not moving very quickly down the court. Defender B1 is running straight forward to get to her "spot" (zone defense). Dribbler A1 is behind and to the left of B1. Dribbler sees a clear path to the basket, and takes off full tilt, cutting off B1, the momentum of B1 just innocently running down the court knocks A1 over. Partner called block. Is that right?

Generally speaking, the defender is responsible for contact from behind on the ball handler. If I understand your scenario, if I had a foul it would be on B1. However, in my mind contact from behind isn't going to be a block, unless it's a trip.

Contact wasn't exactly from behind, since A1 was moving at an angle. Contact was more on the side of A1, and was really truly not B1's fault. I know that fault isn't always determinate.

I didn't argue with partner, because I wasn't sure he was wrong. Contact was severe enough that A1 lost the ball, although she didn't fall clear over. As I watched the play, I was trying to think about what to call -- not really PC, but not really a block. Defender is entitled to her spot on the floor, but she didn't really have a spot. Is she entitled to her "path"? If A1 had been trying to get into guarding position, or to set a screen, it would have been offensive, but she wasn't. I'm just not sure what line of thinking applies here.

Block sounds correct in this case. There is no signal for "tripping"....So a block or push sounds appropriate.

Who initiated the contact?
 

If the contact was initiated by the offense, it should have been whistled an offensive foul. Simply because the defense is moving doesn't put the burden on the defender. It sounds as though the defender wasn't even aware the offensive player was even approaching and essentially was run over by the dribbler. Call: Player control foul on A1, ball to team B at nearest spot, no free throws if in bonus.

A1 cut off B1?

If they had different path, and it sounds like they did, then if A1 cuts off B1 while B1 was in a straight-line path, A1 has to give B1 a maximum of 2 steps or an opportunity to stop or avoid contact. If A1 didn't, PC foul. If A1 did, charge on B1. If A1 lost the ball with the contact, a no-call isn't an option imo.

The concept is laid out in the COMMENT in case book play 10.6.7.

In your scenario.....
 

So, after the contact, B1 is standing their saying, "who me?" and A1 is on the floor and lost the ball.

And your call is foul on A1? What advantage was gained by A1 that you would call them for the foul?

HTBT, but I either call a push on B1 or no call IMO.

Why?

Supposing that A1 doesn't give necessary time/distance to B1: Illegal contact by A1 that puts A1 at a disadvantage and B at an advantage? Doesn't sound like a foul.

You cut the context, this was the part where he was discussing if B1 was responsible for the contact.

Correct. This is a guarding situation, even if B1 didn't know they were guarding. This is NOT screening action and isn't subject to screening rules.

B1 didn't have LGP and was moving at the time of contact. B1 doesn't have the right to be moving at the time of contact unless B1 was leading in the same path/direction (and that does seem to be the case from your description). Plus, it sounds like A1 got head/shoulder by B1...also putting the primary responsibility for the contact on B1.

If it were any other way, a defender could always establish a path across a dribbler's path that would intersect with contact and argue that they couldn't be guilty of a block since they weren't given time/distance to avoid the contact.

A1 got to the spot first and is not required to give a defender time/distance in getting to a defensive position.

I might have cut the context, but the way I read it was that in either case, we can't have a no-call.

JR - can you clarify?