Quote:
Originally Posted by jdw3018
There is an entire thread about a player laying on the board right now.
If A2 fell and was laying still, and B2 had time and distance to avoid him after he got there (important part of the screening principle), then A2 can't be responsible for the contact.
|
I know there is an entire thread but I didn't want to hijack it with a specific case. It just gets too confusing. Hence the title with "RE:" attached
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Nope, but A2 wasn't screening anybody anyway by rule so that's completely irrelevant to what the call should be.
A2 had a legal position while lying on the floor under rule 4-23-1. If B1 then contacts A1, you can either no-call it for incidental contact or in the unlikely case where you think that B1 got some kind of advantage out of it, call a foul on B1. What you don't have is any kind of illegal act being made by A1 under the rules and therefore a foul shouldn't be called on him.
The only way that you could possibly call a foul on A2 would be if A2 fell down behind B1 and B1 immediately backed up and fell over A2. That doesn't sound like what you described above though.
|
There was time and distance between B1 and A2. It was quite a horrific sight since B1 went tripped and when head over heals onto the floor. But you're saying as long as time or distance is given, a prone player can legally be tripped over without a foul being charged to them. I guess I have trouble understanding that
-Josh