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?