Travel, block, or nada?

[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.