Old Casebook Plays Never Die, They Just Fade Away …
 

With apologies to General Douglas MacArthur.

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.

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.

Last appeared in the 2004-05 NFHS casebook. And then, Penn and Teller made it disappear.

Is a fourteen year old casebook play still relevant? Does the interpretation still stand if the NFHS hasn't published it (nor have they published a retraction) for fourteen years? Inquiring minds want to know.

How are young officials without old archived casebooks supposed know this interpretation? By the oral tradition of young basketball officials sitting around a campfire listening to stories about old casebook plays from old, grizzled, veteran officials (like Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.)?

I do not give a darn about old interpretations. They cannot put it somewhere, it does not matter to me personally. I really do not see the obsession over them anyway.

Peace

the defensive player although obtaining LGP is changing their position on an airborne shooter after they have left the floor without contact .. the offensive player has a right to land without contact so landing on the defense makes it a block I think

Where you you get the idea that the defensive player can not change position?

Super late to the party and this is pet peeve of mine but here is my stance in a nutshell.

1) If the defender has LGP then can move sideways or backward and maintain LGP. The way in which they move sideways or backwards is up to them so if they choose to fall backwards ok.

2) We all know they all allowed to duck or turn/twist to protect themselves but I would bet my next pay check that 90% of the time in High school and lower level games when a kid twists, turns or ducks in response to the imminent contact its getting called a block.

3) In the world of concussions kids/parents/coaches are not soft for wanting controlled falls. If its not a charge thats fine but you can't (IMO) call a block or a tech because a kid doesn't want to get hit or hit hard. If it becomes a no call you can have your reasons.

4) Only way this should be a foul of any kind is if kid is falling or throwing themselves at the ground without any contact or chance of contact severe enough to displace them AND acting like they've been trucked AND being indignant about the lack of call - this can be a tech. OR if the offensive player changes their path and the defender falls anyway into a path they didn't have LGP for you can call the block ie. Defender A sets their LGP in the path B1 sidesteps and defender falls with no contact anyway but falls across the landing area or new path where they didn't have LGP.

I am intrigued by this opinion and would be interested in the rules basis for it.

I would agree that the offensive player has the right to land without contact IF the defender was not already in the path before the offensive player jumped. That is a fundamental part of LGP. Perhaps that is what he meant.

Statute Of Limitations ...
 

I can certainly understand JRutledge's point, especially in regard to how a new official gets exposure to an interpretation that isn't presently published somewhere, anywhere, in any current official NFHS document.

However, the NFHS does this to us all the time.

Annual NFHS interpretations are publicized for a single year and then disappear from subsequent official NFHS documents (good example: 2009-10 SITUATION 11, An Obvious Timing Mistake Corrected). Happens every year. Does this mean that single year NFHS annual interpretations (assuming there are no subsequent relevant NFHS rule changes, no subsequent relevant NFHS retractions, or no subsequent relevant revised NFHS annual interpretations) subsequently become null and void?

Annual NFHS Points of Emphasis (good example: 2012-13, Contact Above The Shoulders) may be publicized for a single year (sometimes they reappear) and then often disappear from subsequent official NFHS documents. Happens all the time. Does this mean that single year NFHS Points of Emphasis (assuming there are no subsequent relevant NFHS rule changes, no subsequent relevant NFHS retractions, or no subsequent relevant revised NFHS interpretations) subsequently become null and void?

NFHS Casebook Plays sometimes disappear, unannounced, unpublicized, for no apparent reason other than to possibly save space, at which point they then disappear from subsequent official NFHS documents (good example: 2004-05 NFHS Casebook, 10.6.1 SITUATION E, Player On Floor). Does this mean that a NFHS Casebook Play that disappears, unannounced, unpublicized, for no apparent reason (assuming there are no subsequent relevant NFHS rule changes, no subsequent relevant NFHS retractions, or no subsequent relevant revised NFHS Casebook Plays) subsequently become null and void?

Yes, I know that it's very difficult, possibly impossible, for a new official to get exposure to an old annual interpretation, old Point of Emphasis, or old casebook play, that isn't presently published somewhere, anywhere, in any current official NFHS document, but I don't believe that it's appropriate for those of us who are veterans, who have been to many rodeos, who have been around the block many times, who know these old interpretations, to pretend that they never existed, to ignore them, and to rule contrary to them (assuming there are no subsequent relevant NFHS rule changes, subsequent NFHS retractions, or subsequent revised NFHS interpretations).

The stupid NFHS does this to us all the time.

Kinda what I meant .. if a defender obtains LGP and then falls back prematurely wont they more than likely move their feet somewhat backwards as well? thus moving positions AFTER the offense left the floor

with new POE on verticality does that play into this play as well .. player losing verticality

I am having issues with this play as well. I want to be able to chirp it to a coach as to the reason play was called and it is not simple.

You seem to be stuck on the concept of the defender moving. Forget that. It is leading you to the wrong conclusion. Nothing in the rules says the defender can't move at all after the offense left the floor. Judging by that criteria will lead you to penalize a legal defender.

It does, however, say the defender must have LGP (in the path, two feet down, facing) before the offense jumps. It also says that the defender may move laterally or obliquely away after obtaining LGP. So, if a defender has to move sideways after the offense jumps in order to be in a position to take contact, that means they were NOT in the path and, by definition, didn't have LGP when the shooter jumped. Call it a block.

However, if a defender has LGP at the time of the jump and is in a position such that the offense is already going to hit them and they move laterally (slightly, position adjusting, but not into the path) or backwards and the offense still hits them, they have met the requirements of getting a legal position. Nothing they have done is wrong and can't commit a block. Note that having LGP also does not require the defender to continue to have two feet down or continue to face the opponent. They may be stepping, jumping, turning, etc. all while having LGP previously obtained.


As for verticality, that is about extending part of your body outside of your plane into the space of an opponent or jumping towards your opponent, not extending something away from your opponent. It is violating the vertical plane marked by the front of your established position.

thanks!

so your call is ...

coach inquires your quick answer is ...

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

Short And Sweet ...
 

"Coach. The defender was in initial legal guarding position and didn't move toward the offensive player. The defender is entitled to a position on the court even if the defender is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down. The defender made no attempt to trip the offensive player. A player accidentally tripping is not the same as player being intentionally tripped. Also, I did not believe that the defender faked being fouled."

"And, yes Coach, I agree with you, I do look like George Clooney's identical twin."

Of course, if I'm short on patience, I could just simply give him the famous quote by that ancient, basketball official, Confucius, "There's a difference between being tripped, and tripping".

If the defender is moving away from the offensive player and there is contact, he has not committed a foul whether he had previously had legal guarding position or not.

2018-19 Point Of Emphasis ...
 

Good point, but I wanted to "Blind The Coach With Professionalism And Excessive Proper Terminology Verbiage" (legal guarding position) and leave him dumbfounded, sobbing, and quaking in his shoes. Coaches hate it when I do that to them. On the other hand, I love it.

(With apologies to Thomas Dolby)

(just another ref: Thanks for not correcting the part where the coach thinks that I look like George Clooney's identical twin.)