Tripping, Or Being Tripped ???

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The NFHS has said otherwise.

2004-05 Casebook 10.6.1E is now gone. It's disappeared into a landfill. That probably means that the ruling is also gone?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

2004-05 Casebook 10.6.1E is now gone. It's disappeared into a landfill. That probably means that the ruling is also gone?

Or, IAABO is going off the deep end on their own.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Or, IAABO is going off the deep end on their own.

It's Thelma, and Louise, all over again.

[BryanV21]

I don't agree with calling a travel on A1. Nothing A1 did caused him to travel, as the travel was actually caused by B1. And if B1 didn't obtain that spot on the court legally (LGP), then it seems as though it should be a blocking foul.

Is it fair? No. But neither call would be fair, so you have to go by the rules and make a decision that somebody isn't going to like.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I don't agree with calling a travel on A1. Nothing A1 did caused him to travel, as the travel was actually caused by B1. And if B1 didn't obtain that spot on the court legally (LGP), then it seems as though it should be a blocking foul.

Obtaining a spot legally and having legal guarding position are not the same thing. It is not illegal to fall down, unless you fall into the path of another player. If that other player come along and trips on you after, it's his own fault.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Obtaining a spot legally and having legal guarding position are not the same thing. It is not illegal to fall down, unless you fall into the path of another player. If that other player come along and trips on you after, it's his own fault.

There's a way to determine what B1 did wrong, and therefore call a foul call. There is nothing to say what A1 did wrong to be at fault and called for a violation. If the players were standing, would you call it differently? And if so... Should you?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

There's a way to determine what B1 did wrong, and therefore call a foul call.

What did B do wrong? If he takes a position with his back to A1 (no LGP) and A1 subsequently trips on his foot, do you call a foul for that?

There is nothing to say what A1 did wrong to be at fault and called for a violation.

Fell to the floor while holding the ball.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I don't agree with calling a travel on A1. Nothing A1 did caused him to travel, as the travel was actually caused by B1. And if B1 didn't obtain that spot on the court legally (LGP), then it seems as though it should be a blocking foul.

Is it fair? No. But neither call would be fair, so you have to go by the rules and make a decision that somebody isn't going to like.

Stepping on a player who isn't moving isn't doing anything wrong?

[mutantducky]

it seems like they are saying if a player is on the floor they will be called for a tripping/blocking call which doesn't make sense to me. I mean it could be the right call, but if you just have something when B dives on the ground and then A1 gets the ball and sees B on the floor and then runs over her that would be a foul on B.

I had something like that yesterday with a mad scramble for a loose ball, and then a player picked it up and tripped over one of the bodies on the floor. I wasn't going to call anything but my partner did. The coach was annoyed with the call but my partner, was "what am I not supposed to call anything? She got tripped." No intent on the trip, just an accident. I guess these plays are a case by case basis.

[Adam]

You realize intent is irrelevant when determining whether a foul should be called, right?

[mutantducky]

of course, sorry I mean my partner's rationale.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

2004-05 Casebook 10.6.1E is now gone. It's disappeared into a landfill. That probably means that the ruling is also gone?

It's the same dilemma we've always had -- when a case disappears, (and there's no other), does that mean the ruling is reversed?

FWIW, I think that the correct call *should be* a blocking foul. Much like the "barking dog play", B is NOT entitled to a spot on the floor if s/he's literally on the floor.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's the same dilemma we've always had -- when a case disappears, (and there's no other), does that mean the ruling is reversed?

FWIW, I think that the correct call *should be* a blocking foul. Much like the "barking dog play", B is NOT entitled to a spot on the floor if s/he's literally on the floor.

And that seems to be the rationale used by some other governing bodies. It's not uncommon to find rules from the Nat'l Fed that are seemingly biased towards one or another perception of players' safety, such as the continued absense of an RA. When one admits that the Fed's rules are the basis for virtually all b-ball played at the HS level, and all lower/younger levels, the reasoning for some of those rules may make more sense.