Tripping from Behind
 

Situation: Defender's foot makes slight contact with the foot of the dribbler he is pursuing. Dribbler trips. Foul for illegal contact.
Question: With no official mechanic for "tripping", which signal should properly be used when reporting foul to the table, illustration #32 Blocking, or #33 Pushing?
Reason for asking:
10-6-6: Contact caused by a defensive player who approaches from behind
is pushing.
Yet,
4-7-1: Blocking is illegal personal contact which impedes the progress of
an opponent with or without the ball.

Pushing is really more of movement into the opponents body whether by use of the hands or or the body.

Blocking is the closest foul to describe "tripping".

There's no foul signal because the penalty isn't a foul.

The penalty is 2 minutes in the box. Team A plays 5-on-4 for 2 minutes, trying to score as many in that time for the advantage.

I do not think it matters. This is something either way you should not worry about. Just call a push, since it is from behind that makes the player fall and move on.

Peace

T-Minus Thirty And Counting ...
 

I know more about rocket science than I do about NCAA officiating, but isn't there a trip signal for NCAA women? Or is it a hit in the head signal? OK. Let's get back to talking about propulsion systems.

There is a trip signal in both NCAA mechanics. ;)

Peace

Wouldn't we consider tripping a form of illegal contact?

I don't think the question is whether it is illegal and a foul but what signal should be used.

Actually, that's my point.

Is tripping a type of blocking? Typically not. Pushing? No. Holding? No. Hand Check? No.

That leaves "illegal use," or sometimes, "illegal." While the full description is "illegal use of hand(s)," we typically say the first one or two words when reporting the foul. Tripping is definitely illegal, so why not go with that?

The definition of blocking seems to fit pretty well.

Don't say anything; just give the block signal and move on. No need to verbalize the "type" of foul. Everyone will know what happened anyway.

Type of foul signals are all but obsolete in terms of usefulness. We still need to give them, but they are worthless. The only real exceptions are block/charge, something else that differentiates offense and defense, or situations where a foul caused a violation by the other team and you are calling the foul. I.e. bump caused a travel and you signal for a foul and a push (to sell it).

My only question here is the use of the word "obsolete," which implies that at one time they were more useful than they are now. Were they?

The answer to that is we can consider tripping to be either illegal contact or incidental contact, depending on our judgment using the criteria outlined in NFHS rules 4-19-1 and 4-27.

Freddy in the original post of this thread though had already told us that the trip to be considered was illegal contact, using those exact words.

Does that answer your question?

And for my own personal edification, do you hold a Ph.D in obfuscation?

I do not necessarily agree with that. I have giving just a signal only to be asked "What did he do?" That being said I do verbalize my signal, but I just do not keep it to "push" or "block." I have said "tripping" while giving one of the signals.

I have found I get fewer questions after I report a foul.

Peace

Nothing obfuscatory here, JR. You simply missed my point.

In the NFHS book, I see five options:
*Blocking
*Pushing
*Holding
*Hand Check
*Illegal Use

Does one push when tripping? Or hold? Or hand check? None of the above, typically. Blocking, I can see, sometimes.

If given the choices, I would say tripping mostly goes to illegal use. (If it were incidental, there would be no whistle, anyway.) It certainly isn't the perfect signal under the circumstances, but I can't find a better one of those five.

I'm not sure that I would use the "illegal use" or "hack" signal when reporting a trip. That signal implies the defender did something illegal with his/her arms. I would use the "block" or "push" signals because those two are things that can be done with body parts other than the hand/arm.

Lot of that going around lately. Just put it down to ol' JR being dumb as a post, bainsey. Btw the answer to your question "Wouldn't we consider tripping a form of illegal contact? is yes.

Can't be "Illegal Use"...that is short of "Illegal use of hands (arms)".

It is blocking as it is done with a leg extended outside of the player's LGP or plain legal position. If it is not outside of the player's LGP/legal position, it is not a foul.

If the trip occurred while blocking, then it's certainly blocking. But, tripping from behind ain't blocking.

Yes, "illegal" is short for "illegal use of hands." But, I certainly don't say the entire phrase, nor do I say "hack." "Illegal" is the only applicable one left, IMO.

What make you say this? Tripping from behind seems to fit the definition pretty well.

4-7-1: Blocking is illegal personal contact which impedes the progress of
an opponent with or without the ball.

Does it really make that much difference?

No. But someone has to worry about it so they can sleep well at night I guess.

Peace

:DNaw, it's just another item on the long list of things that I could give a damn less about. :D

Everybody in the gym knows why the foul was called anyway.

Reaching in? :D

Found This In A Fortune Cookie ...
 

"There's a difference between being tripped, and tripping." (Confucius)

I think it was Timothy Leary that said that, not Confucius.

"Hey, who's the fat guy?" - Confucius

Think For Yourself And Question Authority ...
 

No. Dr. Leary said, "Turn on, tune in, drop out".

Conclusion to Which You've Led Me
 

The difference I was hoping to hear was one which might solve the occasional protest of the offending team's coach when he says, "A BLOCK??? He wasn't even in front of him!!!" Or, "A PUSH??? He didn't even touch him with his hands!!!" (Even worse, "He didn't mean it...c'mon, let 'em play out there!!!")
At the end of all the fine responses, I guess I'd say it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. I'll go with the AP arrow on this one.
Whichever mechanic is used -- and, as your relies seem to say, both seem to fit the circumstance -- a brief, verbal word of clarification, "Tripping" along with either signal should suffice to clear up the coach's unbiased, objective, neutral, calmly expressed concern.
I thank all respondents who responded for your responsive responses.

No need go 6 - 1/2 dozen or AP, Welpe has been trying to tell us all afternoon that it is a block. I agree. The definition in 4-7-1 defines it exactly. Why not use the correct mechanic for a block which is the correct definition of what happened?

Apparently it's far more important to know this than the other incorrect interps that come from his association.

Word! :D

Thanks Scratch...now where do I send that check? ;)

Nothing you signal is going to change that response. If they feel you should have have made the call the signal is not ultimately going to change that. This is why I say what they did rather than just give a signal. Not saying it is fullproof, just knows that it gives my description of the play. I tend to not get asked what they did because I gave the answer while reporting.

And if it does not clarify, I would not worry about it. Coaches are never satisfied if they feel you kicked the call.

When the foul is from behind I have always called a block if it was done with a part of the body below the waist and a push if it was using part of the body above the waist. I may be wrong on that but it is how I have been calling it for years.

Robby

I think that's a very wise way to do it.

I think a better question is why doesn't the NFHS just go ahead and add a tripping signal? That and a hit to the head signal. :confused:

Both signals are clear, concise, more descriptive of what happened on the play plus they give information that is helpful to both fans and the coach.

Just to add an element of insanity. If this is FIBA and there is no other defender between them and the basket the call is "unsportsmanlike foul". Merry Christmas!

The signal to which Jeff is referring is used as the Kicking signal for a Violation for both Men's and Women's and as a Kicking/Tripping signal for a foul is for Women's only. Women's foul signals that the Men's do NOT USE include: Hit to the Head, Hook/Wrap, and my favorite, Kneeing.

MTD, Sr.

Nah. Just an interesting omission.

Hmm....I think I like that rule of thumb.

Nope - "Over The Back!!" :D

I called with a first year official the other night and he called an "over the back" foul and then when he reported to the table he gave some weird mechanic that looked like a tiger raising it claws to indicate "over the back" :eek: At half time I politely told him we didn't use that mechanic here and that a simple "push" is sufficient :D

It Was A Graveyard Smash ...
 

Did he look like this?

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...01e4&index=ch1

Very similar