NFHS 4.7.2c
 

In a tie game with less than a minute remaining, A1 drives toward the basket. B1 and B2 stand next to each other, with their nearest feet separated by about a foot. A1 attempts go between B1 and B2, and as he straddles B2's leg, B2 gives him a hip check and causes him to lose the ball out of bounds.

What is the call?

Based on 4.7.2c, I chose a no call on the foul and gave B the ball. But, even though 4.7.2c, gives A1 the greater responsibility for the contact, there is still contact by B2 on the ball handler.

It was not a well received call, so I thought I would ask you guys. When a ball handler dribbles into close quarters, how much is "greater responsibility"?

If I am visualizing this correctly, A1 was straddling B2's leg and therefore had part of his body within B2's Cylinder of Verticality. B2 is allowed to move within his Cylinder of Verticality, therefore while this is probably a HTBT to see it play, I am inclined to say that A1 committed a foul against B2.

MTD, Sr.

If B2 shifts his hip into A1, foul on B2. B2 is never allowed to move into A1 regardless of the amount of space there is between the defenders or a defender and the sideline.

Need more information. By "hip check" do you mean the player was fouled?

I'd say that if A2 was straddling B2's leg, it is more likely that B2 had his leg extended outside the space he was entitled to.

Not always. I have seen defenders violate an offensive player's Cylinder of Verticality from the side and straddle the offensive player's leg without making contact. That still does absolve the defender from contact if his position restricts the offensive player's movement within his CoV.

I will admit that I am concerned about the phrase "hip check" that the author of the OP used and would stick with my first post in that this is a HTBT situation.

MTD, Sr.

The defenders legs were shoulder width, and not using more than their allowed width, but B2 definitely moved his hip into A1 to make him lose his balance.

I felt that A1 had no business even trying to split the double team, so I let the contact go, but the hip movement was hard to ignore. Obviously, the coach from A saw the hip and wanted a foul.

In retrospect, I think I blew the call.

The rule says A has the greater responsibility for contact; not sole responsibility. In this case, if A was getting through legally and B shifted into the path too late, it's a block on B.

I think your no-call was a good no-call, assuming the hip check was minor. A foul on A1 could have been supported by rule, but the other officials might be the only other people in the gym who know it. You could have called a foul on B2 - he isn't allowed to hip check - but then A1 would have been rewarded for trying to split the defenders when there wasn't enough space.

If B1 needed to hipcheck A1 as he went through, then there was enough space.

I classify 4-7-2c under the "multiple foul" paradigm. There are some rule applications that are better left unapplied (especially if you're being evaluated).

I think your no-call intuition was good, although as you said, once you saw the defender shift his hip outside of his vertical plane and the resultant affect on ball handler RSBQ, you probably should have had a blocking foul on that defender.

Thanks for the post. Very teachable moment.

I actually don't see anything in the OP that suggests a foul could be supported by rule against A1. I don't see anthing that tells us B1 was at all impacted by the contact, thus any contact by A1 is incidental.

B1, however....

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.

No where in this rule does it say contact is automatically a foul. The incidental contact rule still applies, and if B1 is not adversely affected by the contact, then by rule you cannot call a foul on A1.

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.