I've Fallen And I Can't Get Up ...

[Dad]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

10.6.1E (NFHS 2004-05): B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts' B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effrot to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

IAABO (not NFHS) Interpretation (January 2015):A1 and B1 both jump in an attempt to rebound a missed try. A1 secures the rebound as B1 loses his/her balance and falls to floor behind A1. A1 spins to begin a dribble contacts B1 and falls. Is this a travel on A1 or foul on B1? Ruling: This is a blocking foul on B1. Although B1 fell to the floor, he/she did not obtain a legal guarding position, which requires an opponent to initially face a player with 2 feet on playing court and the front of the torso must be facing the opponent (Rule 4-23-2).

1st - ok
2nd - what? The implied block calls by this interpretation seem wrong. Am I missing something?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Dad

1st - ok
2nd - what? The implied block calls by this interpretation seem wrong. Am I missing something?

The first, 10.6.1E, hasn't been in the NFHS casebook since 2004-05. Why did it disappear? Is it still relevant?

The second is an IAABO interpretation, which certainly doesn't carry the power of a NFHS interpretation, even among many IAABO members.

Does one believe a more than ten year old NFHS interpretation that is no longer in the NFHS casebook, or does one believe a contradictory non-NFHS interpretation from an organization that has a limited audience, is really not supposed to interpret rules, and even when it does, is supposed make interpretations based on NFHS rules.

I would prefer to believe the NFHS interpretation, but it hasn't been in the casebook for more than ten years. Why was it deleted? How is a new official supposed to know about this interpretation?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

High school boys varsity game, so only NFHS rule apply.

Defender White 33 accidentally trips and falls to the ground, with his body, basically, on the lane line. White 33 doesn't extend arms, legs, or hips, nor does he roll over. A split second later, offensive player Red 22 drives to the basket, tripping over White 33's head, while his head was prone on the floor. Official charges a blocking foul on White 33. Is the official correct?

Here are some relevant citations:

10-6-1: A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress
of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by
bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an
offensive opponent. …Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

10.6.1E (NFHS 2004-05): B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts' B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effrot to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

IAABO (not NFHS) Interpretation (January 2015):A1 and B1 both jump in an attempt to rebound a missed try. A1 secures the rebound as B1 loses his/her balance and falls to floor behind A1. A1 spins to begin a dribble contacts B1 and falls. Is this a travel on A1 or foul on B1? Ruling: This is a blocking foul on B1. Although B1 fell to the floor, he/she did not obtain a legal guarding position, which requires an opponent to initially face a player with 2 feet on playing court and the front of the torso must be facing the opponent (Rule 4-23-2).

4-23-2: To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard’s torso must be facing the opponent.

I'm not a fan of the 2004/05 NFHS interpretation you have set out above. The NCAA interpretation of the same play is a block. I dont believe the NFHS interpretation is supported by the rules AND, I cant for the life of me, figure out in that play scenario, why they feel it necessary to protect that player. He tried to make a steal, missed and fell--unsuccessful at everything. He falls which causes offense to trip, lose ball. He didnt mean to do it but he still caused a player to trip.

In your play above white 33 was standing up at one point. He falls into path of offense and a SPLIT SECOND later red player trips over his head. loses ball. Whether white 33 meant to fall or not, did or did not intentionally try to trip red, the fact is white has gained an advantage. If white 33 is standing up and his right foot slips out to the right and a split second later red trips over that foot i'm calling a block. His foot went outside of his cylinder into the path of the defender. Why would we let a player who uses his head do the same thing and not have a foul?

I believe the statement in the play that every player is entitled to a position on the floor if they get there first, even if lying down is wrong and really doesnt have any support in the rules. Every place in the rules when legal postions are discussed, some of which you have cited above, player is standing and required to stay within his cylinder. Cant extend arms, elbows. must be shoulder width apart. FT lane spots are 3 feet wide. The language in the rules is every player is entitled to a spot on the floor. That is in the guarding rule and rebounding rule. Both of those discuss legal postions being standing...And the obvious, basketball is played standing up.

So why protect the player who has fallen and penalize a player who has the ball legally going to the basket? I could say in some situations that contact with the player on the ground is incidental, or "no harm no foul," but, when the ball is involved and it causes a team to lose the ball, that should be a block.

As to why the NFHS play was removed from the case book, who knows? I'd like to think they realized it was wrong.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I'm not a fan of the 2004/05 NFHS interpretation you have set out above ... He tried to make a steal, missed and fell ... which causes offense to trip, lose ball ... I believe the statement in the play that every player is entitled to a position on the floor if they get there first, even if lying down is wrong and really doesn't have any support in the rules ... The language in the rules is every player is entitled to a spot on the floor ... some situations that contact with the player on the ground is incidental ... but, when the ball is involved and it causes a team to lose the ball, that should be a block ...why the NFHS play was removed from the case book, who knows? I'd like to think they realized it was wrong.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Nice logical response. But the caseplay just disappeared, without a rule change, or an explanation, or a replacement caseplay with a different interpretation.

This (below) is still in the rulebook:

4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an
offensive opponent ... Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

And the language in the old caseplay still matches the rule: Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down

The rule hasn't changed.

10.6.1.E (the NFHS no trip by a fallen player interpretation) goes back to at least 1996-97 (the oldest NFHS Rulebook in my library), so it was a NFHS interpretation for, at least, nine years, it wasn't a one hit wonder.

What if I added to my original situation that defender White 33, after falling, while on the floor, happened to have both feet touching the floor, and his torso happened to be facing the offensive player? Does that change things up?

Or, maybe the IAABO interpretation (blocking foul) is correct?

IAABO (not NFHS) Interpretation (January 2015): A1 and B1 both jump in an attempt to rebound a missed try. A1 secures the rebound as B1 loses his/her balance and falls to floor behind A1. A1 spins to begin a dribble contacts B1 and falls. Is this a travel on A1 or foul on B1? Ruling: This is a blocking foul on B1. Although B1 fell to the floor, he/she did not obtain a legal guarding position, which requires an opponent to initially face a player with 2 feet on playing court and the front of the torso must be facing the opponent (Rule 4-23-2).

I guess that there's always a first time for everything. A broken clock is right twice a day, so maybe IAABO can be right once in a blue moon.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Nice logical response. But the caseplay just disappeared, without a rule change, or an explanation, or a replacement caseplay with a different interpretation.

This (below) is still in the rulebook:

4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an
offensive opponent ... Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

And the language in the old caseplay still matches the rule: Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down

The rule hasn't changed.

10.6.1.E (the NFHS no trip by a fallen player interpretation) goes back to at least 1996-97 (the oldest NFHS Rulebook in my library), so it was a NFHS interpretation for, at least, nine years, it wasn't a one hit wonder.

What if I added to my original situation that defender White 33, after falling, while on the floor, happened to have both feet touching the floor, and his torso happened to be facing the offensive player?

Or, maybe the IAABO interpretation (blocking foul) is correct?

IAABO (not NFHS) Interpretation (January 2015): A1 and B1 both jump in an attempt to rebound a missed try. A1 secures the rebound as B1 loses his/her balance and falls to floor behind A1. A1 spins to begin a dribble contacts B1 and falls. Is this a travel on A1 or foul on B1? Ruling: This is a blocking foul on B1. Although B1 fell to the floor, he/she did not obtain a legal guarding position, which requires an opponent to initially face a player with 2 feet on playing court and the front of the torso must be facing the opponent (Rule 4-23-2).

I guess that there's always a first time for everything. A broken clock is right twice a day, so maybe IAABO can be right once in a blue moon.

In my opinion, the "SPOT on the floor" language refers to a player standing up. All the rules dealing with player positions have the player standing. Rebounding rule, guarding rule, screening, verticality. The Ft lane spots are 3 feet wide, jump circle spots 3 feet wide. Dictionary defintions of spot--Small round or roundish mark. Player lying down is taking up more than one spot in my opinion. We dont have a "horizontal" rule.
(the case play uses word "position" not "spot" as in the rules.)

Maybe part of the differences in opinion result from NCAA and iaabo saying player on ground is not in legal guarding position. The player on the ground isnt "trying" to guard but the fact is his body prevents the offensive player from going somewhere, whether he means it or not. I dont think lying on the ground is a legal position. As I said earlier, I can envision lying down being incidental at times. However, not when the ball is involved. Again, why are they worried about protecting the player who has fallen down? The effect of that is to penalize the player dribbling in a legal postion etc. The rules all assume players are standing and we know game is played standing....

[OKREF]

So, someone lying on the floor gets the entire length of their body as a spot, but someone standing up basically can't be outside the framework of their shoulders?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

... NCAA and IAABO saying player on ground is not in legal guarding position ... fact is his body prevents the offensive player from going somewhere, whether he means it or not. I don't think lying on the ground is a legal position ....

His body prevents the offensive player from going somewhere, is the NFHS definition of guarding: 4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

I don't think lying on the ground is a legal position . What if the fallen player has two feet in contact with the ground and his torso is facing the opponent?

I really appreciate the effort that esteemed Forum members have put into the replies in this thread, and, as a loyal 35 year IAABO member, I would like IAABO to be right for a change, but the NFHS (no block) interpretation was around for almost ten years, and since then there has been no significant change in the rules regarding this situation nor has there been a replacement casebook situation interpreting this as a block.

I'm not being stubborn guys, I'm playing the Devil's advocate.