I've Fallen And I Can't Get Up ...
 

High school boys varsity game, so only NFHS rule apply.

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?

Here are some relevant citations:

10-6-1: A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress
of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by
bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

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.

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).

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.

Billy:

No, the official is not correct per NFHS Rules (even though the NCAA would have one believe differently).

MTD, Sr.

This has always been the pertinent reference for me regarding this issue and similar ones:
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.
A. The player on the floor got there first, albeit not intentionally, without illegally contacting an opponent, right?
B. My objection pertains the applicability of the first part of that rule. Can the activity or status of that player be considered "guarding"? Did he really place his body in the path of the offensive opponent? Is that was he did? I don't think so. Do you?
I'm not saying I know the definitive answer, and am looking forward to the rules-based responses of others. But I'm pretty confident that LGP isn't a prevailing consideration whatever adjudication one finally accepts. He wasn't "guarding."
I reserve the right to be wrong on this.

+1

I saw this in a state semifinal last season and asked our interpreter about it. He said the EXACT same thing (even the part about the NCAA's view).

You're right that such a player doesn't really meet the definition of guarding. But, it isn't relevant. A stationary player, who legally gets to a spot first doesn't have to be guarding. That player has the right to that spot, even if that spot is lying down on the floor. If someone contacts such a player in that legally obtained spot, the player has not fouled.

Offensive fouls can very well be committed against a player who does not have LGP or even a player who isn't even guarding.

I watch too much college ball. I would have bet this was a block 100x over before this thread. Again, thanks for the learning experience.

So, is it most often just going to be called/judged to be incidental contact?


I wish I had a cool signature

In a perfect calling world, this is likely. In reality, fringe plays get called a block pretty often even though it's incidental.

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.

And now for something completely different.
 

Mark, Jr., and I are in the dressing room at half time of a JV game a couple of years ago and we get the three minute warning from the AD at which point I tell Junior: "Help I have sat down and can't get up!" :p

MTD, Sr.

1st - ok
2nd - what? The implied block calls by this interpretation seem wrong. Am I missing something?

What's A Mother To Do ???
 

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?

Are Time And Distance Relevant ???
 

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?

I'm not a fan of the 2004/05 NFHS interpretation you have set out above. The NCAA interpretation of the same play is a block. I dont believe the NFHS interpretation is supported by the rules AND, I cant for the life of me, figure out in that play scenario, why they feel it necessary to protect that player. He tried to make a steal, missed and fell--unsuccessful at everything. He falls which causes offense to trip, lose ball. He didnt mean to do it but he still caused a player to trip.

In your play above white 33 was standing up at one point. He falls into path of offense and a SPLIT SECOND later red player trips over his head. loses ball. Whether white 33 meant to fall or not, did or did not intentionally try to trip red, the fact is white has gained an advantage. If white 33 is standing up and his right foot slips out to the right and a split second later red trips over that foot i'm calling a block. His foot went outside of his cylinder into the path of the defender. Why would we let a player who uses his head do the same thing and not have a foul?

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 doesnt have any support in the rules. Every place in the rules when legal postions are discussed, some of which you have cited above, player is standing and required to stay within his cylinder. Cant extend arms, elbows. must be shoulder width apart. FT lane spots are 3 feet wide. The language in the rules is every player is entitled to a spot on the floor. That is in the guarding rule and rebounding rule. Both of those discuss legal postions being standing...And the obvious, basketball is played standing up. :eek:

So why protect the player who has fallen and penalize a player who has the ball legally going to the basket? I could say in some situations that contact with the player on the ground is incidental, or "no harm no foul," but, when the ball is involved and it causes a team to lose the ball, that should be a block.

As to why the NFHS play was removed from the case book, who knows? I'd like to think they realized it was wrong.

Blue Moon (The Marcels, 1961) ...
 

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.

https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.M52...=0&w=300&h=300