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

[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.