NFHS 4.7.2c

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JeffM

That would make sense. I just hadn't heard that the defender being adversely impacted was the deciding factor on whether to call the foul on the offense.

It's another way of wording the incidental contact rule.

"Contact which does not.... should be ruled incidental."

I don't have my book with me, so I'm hesitant to try to replicate the wording. Essentially, anything that doesn't hinder the opponent from participating in normal offensive or defensive movement is incidental.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JeffM

c. There must be reasonable space between two defensive players or a defensive player and a boundary line to allow the dribbler to continue in his/her path. If there is less than 3 feet of space, the dribbler has the greater responsibility for the contact.

IMO...the rule allows the defenders to move laterally (not hip check) to guard the player. Since it was less than 3 feet, the dribbler has the greater responsibility of the contact and a foul on the dribbler in the OP could be supported by this rule, as long as the hip check was intended to close the gap rather than re-route the dribbler.

But, very few fans and players are aware of this rule. I was not aware of this rule until I became an official. Additionally, 3 feet is pretty wide for a basketball player to go between.

Calling a foul on B would not be questioned.

That rule doesn't really change how any situation would be called if that rule were not present. It is only drawing your attention to the fact that, when the space is limited, the offensive player may need to create contact to squeeze through and, if they do, the foul should be on them.

It clarifies the fact that nothing about the rules requires that either defender in such a case must take the contact in the center of the chest if they were in their spots legally. Contact with one or both legally positioned defenders' shoulders/sides/hips/etc. because the space was so tight is not a foul on the defense.

It doesn't, however, change the requirements of legal guarding which prohibit moving towards the opponent at the time of contact. If the shooter/dribbler is going through and already is in the space, movement to close the gap (hip check or otherwise) is not legal defense.

[JeffM]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That rule doesn't really change how any situation would be called if that rule were not present. It is only drawing your attention to the fact that, when the space is limited, the offensive player may need to create contact to squeeze through and, if they do, the foul should be on them.

It clarifies the fact that nothing about the rules requires that either defender in such a case must take the contact in the center of the chest if they were in their spots legally. Contact with one or both legally positioned defenders' shoulders/sides/hips/etc. because the space was so tight is not a foul on the defense.

It doesn't, however, change the requirements of legal guarding which prohibit moving towards the opponent at the time of contact. If the shooter/dribbler is going through and already is in the space, movement to close the gap (hip check or otherwise) is not legal defense.

Thanks

[rsl]

Originally Posted by JeffM

Calling a foul on B would not be questioned.

This is very true, and my no-call was questioned because everyone in the gym saw the hip. We can't make calls based on how they will be received, but a foul on B would have been a safer call.

Thanks for the discussion. I'll take this as a learning experience.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rsl

This is very true, and my no-call was questioned because everyone in the gym saw the hip. We can't make calls based on how they will be received, but a foul on B would have been a safer call.

Thanks for the discussion. I'll take this as a learning experience.

You're right not to worry about what's "safer" 99% of the time. Fortunately, this time the safer call is the right call (by rule).

Good topic for a lot of people to learn from.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by rsl

....B2 gives him a hip check and causes him to lose the ball out of bounds.

I don't see how this couldn't be anything but a blocking foul on B2.

I like to see this kind of contact through. That is, if A1 can play through the contact and pass B2, I'd rule legal (or a "play on," in a sense). However, if the contact causes A1 to violate, the onus goes to B2. Blocking foul.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I don't see how this couldn't be anything but a blocking foul on B2.

I like to see this kind of contact through. That is, if A1 can play through the contact and pass B2, I'd rule legal (or a "play on," in a sense). However, if the contact causes A1 to violate, the onus goes to B2. Blocking foul.

+1. Officiate by RSBQ in this instance.

[VaTerp]

Good discussion but I'm having a hard time envisioning any "hip-check that causes a player to lose the ball" NOT being a foul.