defender putting offense in danger

[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.)?

[JRutledge]

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

[Valley Man]

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Valley Man

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?

[Pantherdreams]

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.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Valley Man

"...the offensive player has a right to land without contact..."

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.