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

[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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So, you both (two esteemed Forum members who should not be ignored) assume that time and distance must be factored in here, even though the offensive player has the ball (4-23-4)?

I don't recall any major changes in the guarding rule (4-23) in the last ten years, so how does one explain the deletion of the casebook play (10.6.1E NFHS 2004-05)?

Would it make any difference if the tripped offensive player, or the offensive player who trips (depending on one's interpretation), did not have the ball?

Time/Distance applies in my opinion because a moving player requires LGP in order to be legal at the time of contact. A falling player is a moving player.

Once a player is laying on the floor, they are no longer moving, but there are other considerations.

Consider a defender, on his/her feet, that tries to cut off a drive without facing the opponent. If that player gets into the path just before contact with two feet down but without ever facing and there is an immediate collision, we call that a block. If the player was just "there" and had been "there" then we don't. So, we're applying some amount of time/distance to getting to a spot legally.

I think that screening rules apply. Although we typically think of screening in the context of the offensive team, screening rules don't specify offense or defense. A stationary player who doesn't meet LGP requirements (and doesn't need the LGP status) is screening and must meet those requirements. Thus, such a player must meet the time/distance requirements laid out in the screening rules.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Time/Distance applies in my opinion because a moving player requires LGP in order to be legal at the time of contact. A falling player is a moving player.

Once a player is laying on the floor, they are no longer moving, but there are other considerations.

Consider a defender, on his/her feet, that tries to cut off a drive without facing the opponent. If that player gets into the path just before contact with two feet down but without ever facing and there is an immediate collision, we call that a block. If the player was just "there" and had been "there" then we don't. So, we're applying some amount of time/distance to getting to a spot legally.

I think that screening rules apply. Although we typically think of screening in the context of the offensive team, screening rules don't specify offense or defense. A stationary player who doesn't meet LGP requirements (and doesn't need the LGP status) is screening and must meet those requirements. Thus, such a player must meet the time/distance requirements laid out in the screening rules.

The screening player doesn't have to face the opponent but has to have two feet down and stay within his vertical plan. The lying down player does not meet screener definition.

Ps. I'm being made to go to the mall soon so I will be out of commission..ugh

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The screening player doesn't have to face the opponent but has to have two feet down and stay within his vertical plan. The lying down player does not meet screener definition.

Ps. I'm being made to go to the mall soon so I will be out of commission..ugh

I am just suggesting that for a player to be able to move into a "spot" and have right to that spot, they must, at a minimum, meet the time/distance requirements of screening, otherwise, the screening rules wouldn't make any sense. They might need LGP in some circumstances. Extending that concept, even if it doesn't meet the letter of the definition, to a player laying on the floor only makes sense if such a player is to ever be considered to be in a legal position.

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A falling player is a moving player. Once a player is laying on the floor, they are no longer moving ...

What if the fallen (not falling) player has two feet in contact with the ground and his torso is facing the opponent?

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think that screening rules apply.

Maybe they do:

4-40 ART. 1 A screen is legal action by a player who, without causing contact,
delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.
ART. 2 To establish a legal screening position:
a. The screener may face any direction.
b. Time and distance are relevant.
c. The screener must be stationary, except when both are moving in the same
path and the same direction.
d. The screener must stay within his/her vertical plane with a stance
approximately shoulder width apart.

But this situation also definitely meets 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 think that 4-40-2-D (shoulder width apart) might be the key to the "block" interpretation, but why was this viewed as a guarding situation for over ten years, and then suddenly the NFHS changed it to a screening situation, without any comment, and without any rule change, and without any replacement casebook interpretation?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What if the fallen (not falling) player has two feet in contact with the ground and his torso is facing the opponent?

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.

Such a player doesn't have LGP because of the restrictions on extending hips/arms/etc. Such a player is extended pretty much every part of his/her body.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I'm being made to go to the mall soon so I will be out of commission.

I hope that you remembered your checkbook, your credit card, your debit card, and all the cash that you could beg, borrow, or steal..

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... player doesn't have LGP because of the restrictions on extending hips/arms/etc. Such a player is extended pretty much every part of his/her body.

So you say, which may be true, but the caseplay states that B1 made (no) an effort to trip or block A1,, which to me means that B1 kept his arms, and legs, "to himself", i.e., near his body.

Again, I would like to know why an accepted interpretation (no block), for almost ten years (not a one hit wonder), was suddenly changed, without any comment, without any rule change, and without any replacement casebook interpretation? Who died and then who made themselves the Grand Poobah?

To paraphrase General Douglas MacArthur: “Old caseplays never die, they just fade away.”

[Rich]

I have to admit, I probably would've been interested in the nuances of this 10-15 years ago.

But now, 29 years in, I just can't be bothered. I'd call it a block, we'd shoot the free throws, and nobody would say anything.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by rich

i have to admit, i probably would've been interested in the nuances of this 10-15 years ago.

But now, 29 years in, i just can't be bothered. I'd call it a block, we'd shoot the free throws, and nobody would say anything.

+1

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'd call it a block, we'd shoot the free throws, and nobody would say anything.

Actually, the coach, after the foul was reported said, "How can that be a blocking foul? He was on the floor".

[just another ref]

It has to come down to screening principles here. What else is left? If the player falls and is on the floor for ten seconds and the dribbler comes along and trips over him, I've got nothing. (watch where you're going) If the defender trips and falls into the path of the dribbler, who subsequently trips over him, I think that gonna be a block pretty much every time.