Travel, block, or nada?

[LRZ]

I don't want to raise again the question of old interpretations, but is that 2004-2005 case the only authority for this?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

I don't want to raise again the question of old interpretations, but is that 2004-2005 case the only authority for this?

2004-05 Casebook: 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.

Has there been a rule change since 2004-05 that would invalidate this interpretation? How about any citations in existing rules, or caseplays, that would invalidate this interpretation?

There's a difference between being tripped, and tripping.

If it's not illegal, it's legal.

[LRZ]

Billy, please read what I wrote in its entirety and don't go looking for an argument. I was not--I repeat, NOT--debating the precedential value of the case. I was simply asking if there was anything new that I might have overlooked.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

I was simply asking if there was anything new that I might have overlooked.

It's not new, but ...

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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

2004-05 Casebook: 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.

Has there been a rule change since 2004-05 that would invalidate this interpretation?

I'm going strictly off memory here, but I seem to recall something that reversed that old interpretation, stating lying on the floor is not part of the game and therefore not an entitled spot. I'm not betting the house on it, though.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

... something that reversed that old interpretation, stating lying on the floor is not part of the game and therefore not an entitled spot.

Could you be confusing the NFHS interpretation with the (contrary) NCAA interpretation?

[ColeTops25]

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tml#post877832

[HokiePaul]

What if the pivot foot (accidentally) landed on the player who was laying on the floor prior to release of the pass (basically if the offensive player stepped on the defender)? Would anyone interpret this to be a travel as well?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

What if the pivot foot (accidentally) landed on the player who was laying on the floor prior to release of the pass (basically if the offensive player stepped on the defender)? Would anyone interpret this to be a travel as well?

NFHS - Rule 4 Section 44 Article 3 a,b - indicate "returned to the floor". Perhaps "some body" needs to be added to the text.