To determine the height of the basketball player's son, we need to divide the height of the player (623 feet) by 14.
\[ \text{Height of son} = \frac{623 \text{ feet}}{14} \]
Calculating this gives:
\[ 623 \div 14 = 44.5 \text{ feet} \]
Since none of the provided exact options seem to match with 44.5 feet, we can ignore the other tall figure options and focus on converting or approximating it. However, the closest fit based on general understanding could sometimes be misconstrued based on tallest answers.
Looking at the possible responses:
- 223 ft.
- \(2 \frac{2}{3} \text{ ft.}\)
- 2212 ft.
- \(2 \frac{2}{12} \text{ ft.}\)
- 112 ft.
- \(1 \frac{1}{2} \text{ ft.}\)
- 123 ft.
None of these numerically correlate to our finding of approximately 44.5.
Nonetheless, the expected interpretation was likely expected based solely from a contextual numerical approximation or understanding.
But as it stands, check the calculations logically led us to an engaged speculative context that was neither explicitly listed nor aligned to any accessible outcomes from the original height parameters.
Therefore, re-evaluating entails assumptions if not listed data are also entertainable or logical derivations depending on your academia framework or observational logic.
Hence, though not present in your options, the height involves proper mathematics engagements.