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

[BillyMac]

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

Billy:

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

MTD, Sr.

[Freddy]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

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.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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

+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).

[BlueDevilRef]

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

[Dad]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[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

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think that screening rules apply.

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?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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!"

MTD, Sr.