|
|||
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
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." |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
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) |
|
|||
Quote:
If I remember, the interp used that language...entitled to spot. I think that is just flat out wrong. Last edited by BigCat; Sun Nov 20, 2016 at 07:39pm. |
|
|||
Nevadaref Where Are You ???
Could somebody please dig up this NFHS "interp" that a few of you are referring to?
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials Ohio High School Athletic Association Toledo, Ohio Last edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.; Mon Nov 21, 2016 at 09:46am. Reason: P.S. added for BillyMac and P.P.S. added for everybody. |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials Ohio High School Athletic Association Toledo, Ohio |
|
|||
Quote:
And nobody associated with the NCAA has ever denied that is the reason for the rule.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
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
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association Last edited by Camron Rust; Mon Nov 21, 2016 at 04:10pm. |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Player-control foul: NFHS vs. NCAA | Siloooswing | Basketball | 9 | Wed Feb 17, 2010 01:04pm |
NCAA MMOD player | Nevadaref | Basketball | 2 | Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:33am |
NCAA Player Whacks | Nevadaref | Basketball | 5 | Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:47pm |
NCAA injured player | ChuckElias | Basketball | 8 | Thu Dec 08, 2005 05:33pm |
NFHS INJURED PLAYER | FUBLUE | Softball | 1 | Wed May 19, 2004 10:33am |