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

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....

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?

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

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.

Devil's Advocate ...
 

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.

Fallen, Not Falling ...
 

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.

Guarding Or Screening ???
 

Maybe they do:

4-40 ART. 1 A screen is legal action by a player who, without causing contact,
delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.
ART. 2 To establish a legal screening position:
a. The screener may face any direction.
b. Time and distance are relevant.
c. The screener must be stationary, except when both are moving in the same
path and the same direction.
d. The screener must stay within his/her vertical plane with a stance
approximately shoulder width apart.

But this situation also definitely meets 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 think that 4-40-2-D (shoulder width apart) might be the key to the "block" interpretation, but why was this viewed as a guarding situation for over ten years, and then suddenly the NFHS changed it to a screening situation, without any comment, and without any rule change, and without any replacement casebook interpretation?

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.

Festivus Is Coming (December 23) ...
 

I hope that you remembered your checkbook, your credit card, your debit card, and all the cash that you could beg, borrow, or steal..

Let's Take Another Look At The Video ...
 

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.”

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

When On The Floor Really Means On The Floor ...
 

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

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.

Not a chance.

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.

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.

Are My Pants On Fire ???
 

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

Confused In Connecticut ...
 

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).

Turn in your man card.:D

It's not in the current case book.

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

Gotta pick your battles...if you want to keep your stuff...:cool:

In One Year, Out The Other ...
 

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?

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.

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

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.

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