Prone Player–NCAA vs. NFHS

[SC Official]

NCAA Men's A.R. 86

B1 slips to the floor in the free-throw lane. A1 (with his back to B1, who is prone) receives a pass, turns and, in his attempt to drive to the basket, trips and falls over B1. RULING: Foul on B1, who is not in a legal guarding position.

I seem to remember that the NFHS case play says that this is not a foul since B1 is entitled to that spot on the playing court, but I can't find the actual citation. Can anyone cite the case play for this situation?

Would the ruling be different if the player who tripped over B1 was not a ball handler?

I had a loose ball play yesterday in a high school game where a Team B player was prone after unsuccessfully attempting to gain control of the ball and a Team A player tripped over him. I let it go and think I was right according to how these plays are supposed to be officiated by rule.

[Camron Rust]

I don't have the reference handy, but you are right. NFHS is different than NCAA. A prone player (stationary) has a legal spot.

I do think, however, that the prone player would have to meet some amount of time/distance requirements in order to be legal. Not sure if that is stated anywhere but I doubt they intend to make it legal for a player to dive across an opponent's path and be legal just by getting to the floor before contact.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't have the reference handy, but you are right. NFHS is different than NCAA. A prone player (stationary) has a legal spot.

I do think, however, that the prone player would have to meet some amount of time/distance requirements in order to be legal. Not sure if that is stated anywhere but I doubt they intend to make it legal for a player to dive across an opponent's path and be legal just by getting to the floor before contact.

You and I have debated this before. I believe the college interpretation is correct. I dont think a "spot" on the floor is ever the length of a player lying down. Game is played on feet. The legal guarding rule assumes that, the screening rule assumes that etc.

You and I probably arent that far apart in reality. Suppose A1 is holding ball at top of key and B1 is in front of him. A2 comes up to set a pick(screen). At very last second he drops to the floor sprawled out. Immediately A1 goes that way and B1 does also and trips over A2. Time and distance arent a factor since B1 was stationary. But I will call a foul on A2 every time in that situation. I'm thinking you would also. When a player sets a pick standing we make him stay within his shoulders. Elbows out is an illegal position. Lying down has the effect of expanding the pick beyond what rules allow.

On the other hand, if a kid is down and hurt or just down and somebody can clearly avoid him and simply chooses not to, tries to jump over him and doesnt make it...im not likely to bail him out. These are "id have to see it" plays for me. At times i may think its incidental. This may be the OP play.

I just wouldnt defend a no call by saying lying down is his "spot....and every player is entitled to his spot if he gets there first."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

You and I have debated this before. I believe the college interpretation is correct. I dont think a "spot" on the floor is ever the length of a player lying down. Game is played on feet. The legal guarding rule assumes that, the screening rule assumes that etc.

You and I probably arent that far apart in reality. Suppose A1 is holding ball at top of key and B1 is in front of him. A2 comes up to set a pick(screen). At very last second he drops to the floor sprawled out. Immediately A1 goes that way and B1 does also and trips over A2. Time and distance arent a factor since B1 was stationary. But I will call a foul on A2 every time in that situation. I'm thinking you would also. When a player sets a pick standing we make him stay within his shoulders. Elbows out is an illegal position. Lying down has the effect of expanding the pick beyond what rules allow.

On the other hand, if a kid is down and hurt or just down and somebody can clearly avoid him and simply chooses not to, tries to jump over him and doesnt make it...im not likely to bail him out. These are "id have to see it" plays for me. At times i may think its incidental. This may be the OP play.

I just wouldnt defend a no call by saying lying down is his "spot....and every player is entitled to his spot if he gets there first."

There was actually a case play or interpretation for your first situation. Not only is it a foul on A2, but it is more than a common foul. It is a T for unsportsmanlike behavior or an intentional foul (non-basketball play) depending on contact.

The NFHS interpretation doesn't allow for a player to purposefully lay across the floor with the design of tripping an opponent. The NHFS interpretation is intended to cover player who accidentally fall to the floor, perhaps after being tripped up by their opponent. They don't want that player to be liable for a foul if they are just laying there by the time contact occurs.

[DrPete]

I had a play where there was a scramble for the ball resulting in one player laying on the floor on his side (not moving). The player who came up with the ball stumbled over the prone player, and as a result took an extra step before he started dribbling. I called a travel.
At the half, two more senior officials told me that should have been a foul (on the prone player) every time.
What should the right call be? (NFHS)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by DrPete

I had a play where there was a scramble for the ball resulting in one player laying on the floor on his side (not moving). The player who came up with the ball stumbled over the prone player, and as a result took an extra step before he started dribbling. I called a travel.
At the half, two more senior officials told me that should have been a foul (on the prone player) every time.
What should the right call be? (NFHS)

Travel.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There was actually a case play or interpretation for your first situation. Not only is it a foul on A2, but it is more than a common foul. It is a T for unsportsmanlike behavior or an intentional foul (non-basketball play) depending on contact.

The NFHS interpretation doesn't allow for a player to purposefully lay across the floor with the design of tripping an opponent. The NHFS interpretation is intended to cover player who accidentally fall to the floor, perhaps after being tripped up by their opponent. They don't want that player to be liable for a foul if they are just laying there by the time contact occurs.

As I said, it is a case by case situation. If you say that a player lying down is entitled "to that spot because everyone is entitled to spot on floor" then his reason for going down isn't relevant. It's a legal "spot." I have never, and will never agree with that.
If I remember, the interp used that language...entitled to spot. I think that is just flat out wrong.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

... the interp used that language...entitled to spot.

Could somebody please dig up this NFHS "interp" that a few of you are referring to?