Prone Player–NCAA vs. NFHS
 

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.

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."

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.

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)

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.

Nevadaref Where Are You ???
 

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

Travel.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Well said, Camron, as usual.

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.

Thanks Camron Rust ...
 

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

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.

I agree with you. Both the NFHS and NCAA could create an online data base of Rules Books. Casebook, Approved Rulings, Interpretations, and officiating manuals going back to the creation of the National Basketball Committee of the Basketball of the United States and Canada.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, They want to see players attack the rim. All coaches know about help side but those in charge have simply told us where you need to be when helping. Their not thinking about LGP principles. Bilas and Duke like the arc because all their players are All Americans. Not many of those take charges. Attacking the rim and blocking shots are more exciting to most than taking charges. My kids took charges so I'm not a big fan of it but the powers that be have made their decision. They are choosing athleticism over team defense. It is what it is.

Big Cat:

I started officiating boys'/girls' JrHS/HS basketball in 1971 and women's college basketball in 1974 and men's college JVJrColl. in 1993. I retired from college basketball in 2008 after Junior completed his first year of JrHS/HS officiating which was before all of the arc nonsense started and I am so glad I did.

And this may be my last season period for other reasons which are not basketball related.

MTD, Sr.

My first college game was in 1990. I stopped to coach, started again then stopped cause of day job. Started again...and not sure why I still am at times...

I understand the sentiment. There are a lot of things I miss. Nowadays the game is nothing but a track meet(my games). Very little teamwork etc. I like seeing a motion offense with a back door cut etc. I don't see that in college anymore.

The players I see are much more athletic than in the past but there aren't nearly as many good basketball players IMO. It's the way it is.

Mark, all of that is irrelevant to the conversation. Coaches wanted it, and it was put in the rule book. Doesn't matter what the history of the rule is. What matters is what it is now. I have to officiate what is in place, not what others think should be in place.

I've understood that the use of the arc was instigated to increase scoring, because of declining scores, and consequently, fan interest, attendance and TV revenue . . .
Is it not the same reasoning as for the shot clock, the 3-point field goal, the tighter calling of hand-check contact, etc.

Only in part.

Most, perhaps all of those are fan driven. And most are changes to the actual rules and the game to achieve higher scoring.

However, the hand-check rule (more precisely, that the contact currently defined as a hand-check) is a little different. It has been there all along and used to be enforced. Officials stopped calling it over the years in the name of letting them play but it led to an undesirable game. The rules makers renewed emphasis on calling it to clean up the game and get it back, in part, to where it once was where finesse, quickness, and skill were more valued than strength and physicality.

I think Mark's main objection is that the addition of the arc was done in a way that contradicts basic principles and other rules. The change could have been accomplished more cleanly. This is not unlike the team control on a throwin fiasco where they way they did it created a mess of related rules.