defender putting offense in danger

[JRutledge]

I just saw this recently.

Is this what is being referenced on some level?



Peace

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I just saw this recently.

Is this what is being referenced on some level?



Peace

Yeah, that's an old video clip that does not justify the alleged technical called for "faking being fouled." We need something better than this . . .

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Yeah, that's an old video clip that does not justify the alleged technical called for "faking being fouled." We need something better than this . . .

I agree with the technical foul portion you referenced. This is clearly not "faking a foul," but wondering if that is what some people would think applies to not giving the defender a foul?

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I agree with the technical foul portion you referenced. This is clearly not "faking a foul," but wondering if that is what some people would think applies to not giving the defender a foul?

Peace

That's just a horrible call. The offensive player actually ducked his head all the way down into the defender's midsection.

[BillyMac]

(Note: Old citation reference numbers.)

Relevant rules and caseplay:

4-23-3: After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne,
provided he/she has inbound status.
b. The guard is not required to continue facing the opponent.
c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it
is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.
d. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane.
e. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact.

It doesn't directly say it, but I'm pretty sure that the guard may back up.

10-3-6-F: A player shall not: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts
or conduct such as: Faking being fouled …

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

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.

(Note: In regard to players on the floor, I believe that the college "tripping/tripped" rule is different than the high school rule.)

[DrPete]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

(Note: Old citation reference numbers.)

Relevant rules and caseplay:

.....

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.

(Note: In regard to players on the floor, I believe that the college "tripping/tripped" rule is different than the high school rule.)

What year was this casebook play published? Case 10.6.1 Situation E is not in my current casebook. I agree with this interpretation while others that I know do not.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

(Note: Old citation reference numbers.)

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

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.

Originally Posted by DrPete

What year was this casebook play published? Case 10.6.1 Situation E is not in my current casebook. I agree with this interpretation while others that I know do not.

Very sharp observation DrPete. This is yet another "The Case Of the Unannounced Disappearing For No Known Reason Casebook Play". No apparent rule change. No NFHS announcement. No replacement caseplay. No new interpretation. No NFHS cancellation of the old interpretation. How are young officials without old archived casebooks supposed know this interpretation?

If a casebook play falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, is it still a casebook play?

[BillyMac]

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.

Originally Posted by DrPete

What year was this casebook play published?

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.)?