Loose Ball Foul?

[MathReferee]

I was in a conversation with a coach following a game and he asked about the following situation. Basically, he is coaching a team that is not incredibly talented but they play hard from start to finish.

Situation: During a loose ball, A1 and B1 are running in straight paths. A1 dives for the loose ball, following his straight path, while B1 remains upright in his path. B1 trips over A1 and goes down to the floor.

The coaches complaint is that his player (A1 in the scenario) is often called for the foul and he feels they are being penalized for diving for the ball. If both players had remained upright and collided this would be a no call. My explanation was that in this situation it could be a possible no call if both players truly remain on their path and neither go into the other player's path.

I think the reality is that most of the time the foul will be called on A1 regardless, but why? What verbiage would you use to explain a blocking foul on A1 in this scenario?

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by MathReferee

I was in a conversation with a coach following a game and he asked about the following situation. Basically, he is coaching a team that is not incredibly talented but they play hard from start to finish.

Situation: During a loose ball, A1 and B1 are running in straight paths. A1 dives for the loose ball, following his straight path, while B1 remains upright in his path. B1 trips over A1 and goes down to the floor.

The coaches complaint is that his player (A1 in the scenario) is often called for the foul and he feels they are being penalized for diving for the ball. If both players had remained upright and collided this would be a no call. My explanation was that in this situation it could be a possible no call if both players truly remain on their path and neither go into the other player's path.

I think the reality is that most of the time the foul will be called on A1 regardless, but why? What verbiage would you use to explain a blocking foul on A1 in this scenario?

f A1 and B1 stayed in their paths, which sound like they run parallel to each other, how did B1 end up falling over A1? Sounds to me like at least one of those players veered off of their path and into the other. The answer to that question will let you know who to call the foul on.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

f A1 and B1 stayed in their paths, which sound like they run parallel to each other, how did B1 end up falling over A1? Sounds to me like at least one of those players veered off of their path and into the other. The answer to that question will let you know who to call the foul on.

Not at all true. Two separate vectors often cross, especially when a single ball is involved.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Adam

Not at all true. Two separate vectors often cross, especially when a single ball is involved.

So they are not parallel paths, meaning I misunderstood the OP. Then it's a matter of who got there first, and did the player that got there first move out of their space and cause contact.

[MathReferee]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

f A1 and B1 stayed in their paths, which sound like they run parallel to each other, how did B1 end up falling over A1? Sounds to me like at least one of those players veered off of their path and into the other. The answer to that question will let you know who to call the foul on.

The scenario is more of two players running perpendicular to each other, as opposed to parallel.

100!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by MathReferee

I was in a conversation with a coach following a game and he asked about the following situation. Basically, he is coaching a team that is not incredibly talented but they play hard from start to finish.

Situation: During a loose ball, A1 and B1 are running in straight paths. A1 dives for the loose ball, following his straight path, while B1 remains upright in his path. B1 trips over A1 and goes down to the floor.

The coaches complaint is that his player (A1 in the scenario) is often called for the foul and he feels they are being penalized for diving for the ball. If both players had remained upright and collided this would be a no call. My explanation was that in this situation it could be a possible no call if both players truly remain on their path and neither go into the other player's path.

I think the reality is that most of the time the foul will be called on A1 regardless, but why? What verbiage would you use to explain a blocking foul on A1 in this scenario?

Because A1 is not in his vertical space, and not stationary; unless A1 is no longer moving after his dive. Otherwise, A1 tripped B1, not B1 tripped over A1.

[JRutledge]

For me, I think it matters more who got to the spot first? If the diver got to the spot first, I am not likely calling a foul because someone tripped over him. If the diver slides into the path of the opponent, that is totally different. Again, it really matters who was where first to call a foul. I have often not called any foul in these situations when no one was really disadvantaged. And this is really no a LGP issue IMO either.

Peace

[MathReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

For me, I think it matters more who got to the spot first? If the diver got to the spot first, I am not likely calling a foul because someone tripped over him. If the diver slides into the path of the opponent, that is totally different. Again, it really matters who was where first to call a foul. I have often not called any foul in these situations when no one was really disadvantaged. And this is really no a LGP issue IMO either.

Peace

Thanks.

[SmokeEater]

+1 for BNR and JRut these are very good expalnations that are easy to understand. However, IMO they may be too involved to use during the game and would require conversation at half or after the game if so desired.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

+1 for BNR and JRut these are very good expalnations that are easy to understand. However, IMO they may be too involved to use during the game and would require conversation at half or after the game if so desired.

If you are referring to a coach, you are absolutely correct. I would never explain that much to a coach during a game as we would not have very much time. I might say, "Coach he got to the ball first and did not trip your player." Or something along that lines.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

+1 for BNR and JRut these are very good expalnations that are easy to understand. However, IMO they may be too involved to use during the game and would require conversation at half or after the game if so desired.

During a game, at most, "He tripped him."
If he wants to burn time during hafltime, he might get 15 seconds depending on his approach and demeanor.
After the game? Not a chance (with the understanding that MS and summer games may require a different approach).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

+1 for BNR and JRut these are very good expalnations that are easy to understand. However, IMO they may be too involved to use during the game and would require conversation at half or after the game if so desired.

Diver A1 gets there first with runner B1 coming later...."A1 got there first" and wasn't disadvantage by B1 tripping (unless B1 then landed on A1).

Runner B1 gets there first and with A1 diving into B1's legs: "A1 took B1's legs out to get to the ball"

[Rich]

Originally Posted by MathReferee

I was in a conversation with a coach following a game and he asked about the following situation. Basically, he is coaching a team that is not incredibly talented but they play hard from start to finish.

Situation: During a loose ball, A1 and B1 are running in straight paths. A1 dives for the loose ball, following his straight path, while B1 remains upright in his path. B1 trips over A1 and goes down to the floor.

The coaches complaint is that his player (A1 in the scenario) is often called for the foul and he feels they are being penalized for diving for the ball. If both players had remained upright and collided this would be a no call. My explanation was that in this situation it could be a possible no call if both players truly remain on their path and neither go into the other player's path.

I think the reality is that most of the time the foul will be called on A1 regardless, but why? What verbiage would you use to explain a blocking foul on A1 in this scenario?

"He tripped him."