To find the height of the basketball player's infant son, we need to calculate 1/14 of the player's height, which is 623 feet.
First, we divide 623 by 14:
\[ 623 \div 14 \approx 44.5 \text{ feet} \]
Now, let's interpret the possible answers. The options mix feet and fractions. We need to express 44.5 feet in fractional form.
The decimal 0.5 can be represented as 1/2, which leads to:
\[ 44.5 \text{ feet} = 44 \text{ feet} + \frac{1}{2} \text{ foot} \]
44.5 feet is equivalent to:
\[ 44 \text{ feet} + \frac{1}{2} \text{ foot} = 44 \frac{1}{2} \text{ feet} \]
Since none of the provided responses exactly match 44.5 feet, let's check the closest option by reviewing the list.
It appears that the closest option regarding the size could be:
\[ 1 \text{ Start Fraction 1 over 2 End Fraction ft.} \]
This option does not represent the correct answer of 44.5 directly. However, if there was some confusion here with the representation of feet, the son is actually around:
\[ 44.5 \text{ feet} \text{ or approximately } 44.5 \]
None of the options seem to numerically represent the son’s height directly based on my calculations.
If I were to assign one based on a misinterpretation of fractions here, option 1 Start Fraction 1 over 2 End Fraction ft. could be the answer, but that doesn't appear correct contextually given the expected logical height of a child in feet.
If we strictly go through the options:
- 112 ft.
- 2212 ft.
- 223 ft.
- 123 ft.
- The height of a child cannot be interpreted in feet as stretching above normal human height.
Hence, the most likely answer, even if it does imply a miscommunication in representation must revert towards the closest approximation.
Thus, the answer with the closest relation should focus on:
44.5 which none accurately portray.
Final answer remains inconclusive as per given options at best rendering either of them potentially misrepresented. But ideally should physiologically be under 2 or 3 feet at child age. Hence, correctly could be rationally perceived around 2 or 3 making sense if scaled towards compared metric units and value expectancy.
Other factors could suggest rounding variances which could tell perhaps ambiguity 1 to 3 feet depending on conversion.
Overall feel leads to 14 as fraction should be 0.5 over feet base inquiry assumed here if proportioned wholly represents thus retains none satisfies direct count correlation based. Thus need of reevaluation or seek validation for further context re-confirmation.