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

[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.”

[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".

[Dad]

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.

I'm not sure how to take your post, but if you wouldn't mind I'd appreciate your reasoning for calling a block and this case:

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.

[Welpe]

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.

Next thing you're going to tell me is that a defender who falls early should be charged with a block.