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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

I think this is the key to how this would actually be called. Perception is reality. If a player falls directly in the path of the dribbler who immediately trips over him, this could very well be called a block, even if he had become stationary for a split second.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I think this is the key to how this would actually be called. Perception is reality. If a player falls directly in the path of the dribbler who immediately trips over him, this could very well be called a block, even if he had become stationary for a split second.

Agree. They can't just fall in front of them. Otherwise, you'd see defenders who would otherwise not be able to cut off the path diving to the floor in front of drives hoping to get on the floor and trip them up.

There is a purpose for this rule, and it isn't to allow defenders to use it purposefully.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I think this (split second) is the key to how this would actually be called ... If a player falls directly in the path of the dribbler who immediately trips over him, this could very well be called a block, even if he had become stationary for a split second.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Agree.

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?

[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

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..

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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

Turn in your man card.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

Turn in your man card.

Gotta pick your battles...if you want to keep your stuff...

[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.

[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 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.”

[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?