What would you do?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

In that case, I'd probably go with an intentional personal foul, or a flagrant personal foul.

When my partner and I talked about it after, I thought intentional also.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mregor

I got nothing. Intent has no bearing unless there is a foul. Sounds like you aren't even sure there was contact. If I thought he tried to trip, I'd talk to coach and let him/her know if he had succeeded, he would be in the showers, but you can't penalize on intent alone.

Sure you can, that's why fighting only requires the culprit to attempt to punch someone. Actually landing the punch isn't required.

If I thought the player was intentionally trying to trip an opponent and just missed, I'd seriously consider a flagrant T. At minimum it's a T, and I'm waiting until the offense puts up a shot attempt or backs out of a drive before calling it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

Sure you can, that's why fighting only requires the culprit to attempt to punch someone. Actually landing the punch isn't required.

If I thought the player was intentionally trying to trip an opponent and just missed, I'd seriously consider a flagrant T. At minimum it's a T, and I'm waiting until the offense puts up a shot attempt or backs out of a drive before calling it.

You can only withhold the whistle until after the try/goal for technical foul offenses by bench personnel per the NFHS Case Book.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You can only withhold the whistle until after the try/goal for technical foul offenses by bench personnel per the NFHS Case Book.

10.4.1 SITUATION F: A1 is driving toward the basket for an apparent goal when
the official, while trailing the play advancing in the direction in which the ball is
being advanced, is cursed by the head coach or bench personnel of Team B. How
should the official handle this situation? RULING: The official shall withhold blowing
the whistle until A1 has either made or missed the shot. The official shall then
sound the whistle and assess the Team B head coach or bench personnel with a
technical foul. If the official judges the act to be flagrant, the offender shall be
ejected. If A’s coach or bench personnel was the offender, the whistle shall be
sounded immediately when the unsporting act occurs. (10-4-1a)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You can only withhold the whistle until after the try/goal for technical foul offenses by bench personnel per the NFHS Case Book.

It's summer, and I don't have my books handy, but I'm surprised to read "only" above.

I do recall a case where B1 intentionally steps out of bounds, and the guidance is to ignore or delay (I forget which) the violation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's summer, and I don't have my books handy, but I'm surprised to read "only" above.

I do recall a case where B1 intentionally steps out of bounds, and the guidance is to ignore or delay (I forget which) the violation.

The case play does not say "only," but Nevada interprets it that way.

I do not.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... a case where B1 intentionally steps out of bounds, and the guidance is to ignore or delay (I forget which) the violation.

9.3.3 SITUATION D: The score is tied 60-60 with four seconds remaining in the
game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an
uncontested lay-up. B5 running down the court near the sideline, intentionally
runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called.
RULING: B5's intentional violation should be ignored and A1's activity should
continue without interruption. COMMENT: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal
defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for
an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a
period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily
ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is
not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul
for unsporting behavior. (10-1-8)

I also have a problem with Nevadaref's interpretation containing the word "only", and would like to see some more discussion regarding same.

Was the attempted trip specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a period, or to take away a clear advantageous position by the offense? If so, this case play (9.3.3 SITUATION D) certainly might apply. If not, we might need another citation allowing the official to temporarily ignore the flagrant technical foul.

10.4.1 SITUATION F, as interpreted by Nevadaref, only applies to the bench, but should it also apply to a player on the floor?

Also, what does this, from 9.3.3 SITUATION D (below), mean?

... If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior.

My head is starting to hurt. I still think that we should delay the flagrant technical foul for the attempted trip, but I can't come up with a good case play, or rule interpretation, to defend my opinion.

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by Adam

Sure you can, that's why fighting only requires the culprit to attempt to punch someone. Actually landing the punch isn't required.

If I thought the player was intentionally trying to trip an opponent and just missed, I'd seriously consider a flagrant T. At minimum it's a T, and I'm waiting until the offense puts up a shot attempt or backs out of a drive before calling it.

This isn't about fighting. It's about an attempted trip. You would seriously consider a flagrant T. I wouldn't.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mregor

This isn't about fighting. It's about an attempted trip. You would seriously consider a flagrant T. I wouldn't.

Until I see a video, I won't commit either way. Tripping a player intentionally is dangerous. I'm most likely going with a T, but flagrant is an option. Would I call it? Probably not. But I'd consider it.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

Until I see a video, I won't commit either way. Tripping a player intentionally is dangerous. I'm most likely going with a T, but flagrant is an option. Would I call it? Probably not. But I'd consider it.

If you will tell me how to embed I will try. Or I can send you the link and you can get it.