Prone Player–NCAA vs. NFHS

[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?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Actually, I think what i was referring to was an old case play that has since been removed from case book. Camron mentioned that he recalled an old interp or case play that said lying down just next to someone was more than a common foul. I havnt seen anything like that.

I think the old case play im referring to was set out here somewhere on the forum in the past. No idea about camron's play/interp.

[LRZ]

As a matter of common sense, entitlement to a spot on the floor must be predicated on being on your feet, not lying down, as basketball is played on your feet. Although not identical but similar to the definition of legal guarding position, which requires, in part, two feet on the floor.

I also find it problematic to rely on cases that no longer appear in an authoritative publication. How is a new(er) official to know about such an interpretation? Maybe they don't appear because they are no longer correct.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

It is too early in the morning for me to climb up into the attic but I will comment anyway.

Originally, the Casebook Play Ruling for NFHS and NCAA Men's was the same going back at least 55 years, and for NCAA Women's was the same for at least 30 years. And that ruling was that a player was entitled to any spot on the court as long as the spot was gained legally and it did not matter if the player was standing or not. Somebody can look it up for me (see above reference to my attic), the NCAA Men's and Women's Committees changed their ruling, some 20 years ago, to such that a player had to be standing in order to maintain a legally gained spot on the court.

It should be noted that the definition of Guarding and Screening for NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's have been the same (not withstanding that abomination upon the game called the Arc in the Free Throw Lane) for well over 55 years with exception of the NFHS changing the word "establish" to "obtain" which did not change the definition and application of Guarding Rule one iota.

I never (with apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirley) agreed with NCAA Casebook/Approved Ruling interpretation because it cannot be defended by rule.

I have said my piece and not take part in the discussion any further other than to read subsequent posts in the thread.

MTD, Sr.


P.S.: BillyMac: I know that I joke about the AP being an abomination upon the game, because I really do not like it but it is a rule change that I can live with.

P.P.S.: But the the real abomination upon the game is the Arc. Every member of the NCAA Rules Committees that voted for the arc and every member since then are completely ignorant of the basis for the Guarding definition. I am done now.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

...



P.P.S.: But the the real abomination upon the game is the Arc. Every member of the NCAA Rules Committees that voted for the arc and every member since then are completely ignorant of the basis for the Guarding definition. I am done now.

It not based on guarding position, or the history of the rule. It's based on coaches (who make up the rule along with ADs and commissioners) not wanting defender trying to draw charges at or near the rim without actively guarding.

And nobody associated with the NCAA has ever denied that is the reason for the rule.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

P.P.S.: But the the real abomination upon the game is the Arc. Every member of the NCAA Rules Committees that voted for the arc and every member since then are completely ignorant of the basis for the Guarding definition. I am done now.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It not based on guarding position, or the history of the rule. It's based on coaches (who make up the rule along with ADs and commissioners) not wanting defender trying to draw charges at or near the rim without actively guarding.

And nobody associated with the NCAA has ever denied that is the reason for the rule.

BNR:

The NCAA Rules Committee's reasoning (which I have highlighted in red) is completely flawed because it is made based upon a complete lack of knowledge of the definition of Guarding.

1) For over sixty years the cornerstone of the definition of Guarding as it relates to a play in control of the ball has been: That a player in control of the ball must expect to be guarded from the moment he/she gains control of the ball until the moment he/she no longer has control of the ball. That sentence alone supports two bedrock principals of Guarding: (1) The no time and distance requirement obtaining (NFHS)/establishing (NCAA) a LGP against a Player in Control of the Ball. And (2) there is no such thing as a "secondary" defender (no matter hard the NCAA wants to contort itself in trying to defend the term).

That means: A1 is dribbling the Ball while being guarded by B1. A1 drives past B1. The moment A1 gets past B1, A1 must expect that he can will be immediately guarded by another Team B player.


2) The phrase "without actively guarding" is absolutely sheer nonsense. There is has not ever been such a phrase in the rules book. It is a phrase used by coaches (as well as players, fans, and Jay Bilas) who have absolutely no clue as to the definition of Guarding. A great example that shows what nonsense that phrase is PLAY: B1 is standing under Team A's Basket. A1 is standing at the top of the key in Team B's Frontcourt with both feet on the floor and facing B1. Has A1 obtained/established a LGP against B1? RULING: Yes.

Furthermore, I do not know of a single basketball coach on Earth that does not teach about helping out on defense.

I will end now.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by LRZ

As a matter of common sense, entitlement to a spot on the floor must be predicated on being on your feet, not lying down, as basketball is played on your feet. Although not identical but similar to the definition of legal guarding position, which requires, in part, two feet on the floor.

I also find it problematic to rely on cases that no longer appear in an authoritative publication. How is a new(er) official to know about such an interpretation? Maybe they don't appear because they are no longer correct.

Read my previous post.


I understand your frustration but Casebook Rulings are like Supreme Court Rulings. Until the Rule is changed the CBR remains. It requires research and many times relying upon "bald old geezers" like me who are not only rules interpreters but historians of the rules of the game.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by LRZ

As a matter of common sense, entitlement to a spot on the floor must be predicated on being on your feet, not lying down, as basketball is played on your feet. Although not identical but similar to the definition of legal guarding position, which requires, in part, two feet on the floor.

Incorrect. Legal guarding position, while requiring two feet down initially, grants a lot more freedom to a defender. Short of having two feet down, it is still entirely possible to have a legal position. Aside form LGP, there is no requirement anywhere in the rules requiring feet to be on the floor to be legal.

Originally Posted by LRZ

I also find it problematic to rely on cases that no longer appear in an authoritative publication. How is a new(er) official to know about such an interpretation? Maybe they don't appear because they are no longer correct.

It is called experience.

They can't put every possible scenario in the casebook....it would be too long to read in a lifetime. Plus, the casebook isn't "the rule", it is just giving examples of how the rules are applied. If they wanted it to no longer apply, they would typically change the rule and add a new case with the new ruling.

Also, they rotate different things through the casebook periodically to address current issues within the limited space (remember, it is still primarily a printed book) without intending to invalidate rulings just because they are not mentioned. They just choose to drop something that everyone seems to understand or is not as important.

Reference to the old case play: https://forum.officiating.com/197131-post22.html

[billyu2]

Well said, Camron, as usual.

[SNIPERBBB]

NFHS really ought to create a Master Casebook, and just maintain it on-line or can be printed on-demand. Where old case plays never die until there is a rule change that renders them obsolete.

IE in golf the USGA Decisions book is almost 800 pages long.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Reference to the old case play: https://forum.officiating.com/197131-post22.html

10.6.1 SITUATION E:
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 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.

4-23-1
Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent