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

[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".

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Not a chance.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

...and nobody would say anything.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Originally Posted by Rich

Not a chance.

I was observing the game. The coach said it. Are you calling me a liar?

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Dad

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.

It's not in the current case book.

If you're asking my opinion, I think it's a stupid ruling.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

It's not in the current case book.

Good point. How is an official with less than ten years of experience supposed to know about an interpretation that hasn't been in the casebook for more than ten years?

On the other hand, how is an experienced official who used this interpretation for the nine years that it was in the casebook supposed to know that the interpretation has changed?

Don't you just love it when the NFHS makes unannounced changes?

Originally Posted by Rich

I think it's a stupid ruling.

A stupid ruling that hung around for nine years? And if it was a stupid ruling that was changed, nobody at the NFHS thought that the change was important enough to be announced.

And, we still don't have any evidence that the ruling was changed, the casebook play just faded away. Why? Because it was stupid? Because the NFHS wanted to free up some room in the casebook? Or because it was inadvertently dropped from the casebook (like the multiple substitute lineup rule was inadvertently dropped from the rulebook several years ago)?

Too bad that the NFHS doesn't have a basketball rules editor that actually takes the time to edit.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So, you're saying it's not a blocking foul? The NFHS caseplay disappeared. You say it's still valid (and I'm leaning to agree) because there has been no NFHS new ruling to the contrary (just the NCAA, and IAABO).

Correct. There has been no change in interpretation. The interpretation made sense then and still makes sense.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Good point. How is an official with less than ten years of experience supposed to know about an interpretation that hasn't been in the casebook for more than ten years?

On the other hand, how is an experienced official who used this interpretation for the nine years that it was in the casebook supposed to know that the interpretation has changed?

Don't you just love it when the NFHS makes unannounced changes?

....
Too bad that the NFHS doesn't have a basketball rules editor that actually takes the time to edit.

It wasn't changed. There are many things about the job we do that are not spelled out in the books. If the books detailed everything and every angle of every rule, the book would be the size of the OED.

Unless the NFHS says otherwise, correct interpretations remain valid indefinitely.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Again, I would like to know why an accepted interpretation (no block), for at least 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?

It wasn't changed. They have a limited amount of space in the casebook and probably decided that something else they wanted to put in was more useful to include. It doesn't mean the interpretation is no longer valid when something disappears from the casebook. In fact, I'd suggest that all casebook plays do remain valid even if they disappear unless there is a new ruling to the contrary.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It wasn't changed. They have a limited amount of space in the casebook and probably decided that something else they wanted to put in was more useful to include. It doesn't mean the interpretation is no longer valid when something disappears from the casebook. In fact, I'd suggest that all casebook plays do remain valid even if they disappear unless there is a new ruling to the contrary.

So, you're saying it's not a blocking foul? The NFHS caseplay disappeared. You say it's still valid (and I'm leaning to agree) because there has been no NFHS new ruling to the contrary (just the NCAA, and IAABO).