Shooter landing on defender laying on floor

[Altor]

Originally Posted by thedewed

exactly. what have you got, nothing? certainly not a charge. if a defender isn't ball-aware enough to turn and square up, and is in the route of the driver, and there is contact, it's a block.

Originally Posted by 10-7-7

A dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path nor attempt to dribble between two opponents or between an opponent and a boundary, unless the space is such as to provide a reasonable chance for him/ her to go through without contact.

Hmm. That rule doesn't say anything about the opponent being "squared up".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by thedewed

exactly. what have you got, nothing? certainly not a charge. if a defender isn't ball-aware enough to turn and square up, and is in the route of the driver, and there is contact, it's a block.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by thedewed

I suppose if the context isn't a legit bball play, i.e. the dribbler is simply seeking out an unwary defender, rather than making a legit play on the basket, I'd look at it differently, but if a dribbler is making a basketball move and comes in contact with a defensive player, if the defensive player isn't in LGP, if there is enough contact for a foul, the foul is on the defense.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by thedewed

I was officiating games with NBA players over 20 years ago and had them eating out of my hand, via common sense. I don't need to talk to anyone. If anyone can come up with a video of a D1 official calling a charge on a dribbler driving into a defensive player at the basket with his back to him, put it up. It won't happen.

Bullshitting people for 20 years doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by thedewed

You all have younger officials on here looking for actual guidance as they progress, I'd be careful filling their heads with inappropriate concepts. The answer here in legit bball plays is, was the defensive player in legal guarding position. If not, it certainly isn't a charge, and is either a no-call or a block.

Then you should stop posting now. You're suggesting people just plays entire by made up rules.....which is wrong any way you look at it.

Originally Posted by thedewed

some of you are reading too much into the 'entitled to a position on the floor' language in the books, that doesn't overrule the need for LGP. If you called a charge in a game where a driver direct to the basket collided with a defensive player that was looking for the rebound and had his back to the drive, you would get laughed out of the gym, if it was men's basketball.

Only because people like you insist on making up stuff as they go instead of calling it correctly.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by LRZ

In my opinion, 10.7.1A does not cover the OP's situation. "B1 takes a certain spot on the court..." implies intent, an intentional act that is neither accidental, as in "falls to the floor," as in 10.6.1, nor incidental during a scramble, as in the OP.

I'm much more comfortable saying to a coach, "He didn't have legal guarding position," than "There's an old case...."

My problem with the NFHS case play is "how much space on the floor is the defender entitled to?" If he's a 7 footer, the offensive player has to detour completely around his body? If the defender were upright, he wouldn't be entitled to spread out his arms and take up that much space. A player lying on the floor is no longer within his natural cylinder.

Can a player who is lying down set a legal screen? If 7' tall A2 is prone on the floor, and B1 is guarding A1 and B1 trips over A2, is that a legal screen?

[thedewed]

A couple of things: charge is defined as contact with the defender's torso. also, the NCAA rule book says that if a dribbler has established a straight line path, he needs to avoid contact with a defender that has established LGP. The negative implication for all of you logic experts is that he doesn't have to avoid contact with someone in his path that doesn't have LGP. The guy saying dribbling to the basket and into someone that is set up for a rebound, oblivious to the drive, is a 'pushing' foul even though he is in possession of the ball? High-level comedy.Being entitled to a spot if you are the first there doesn't preclude the need to have LGP if you come in contact with a ballhandler. Otherwise,what's the point of LGP?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by thedewed

.... Otherwise,what's the point of LGP?

The point of LGP is to allow the defender to be moving at the time of contact.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by thedewed

A couple of things: charge is defined as contact with the defender's torso. also, the NCAA rule book says that if a dribbler has established a straight line path, he needs to avoid contact with a defender that has established LGP. The negative implication for all of you logic experts is that he doesn't have to avoid contact with someone in his path that doesn't have LGP. The guy saying dribbling to the basket and into someone that is set up for a rebound, oblivious to the drive, is a 'pushing' foul even though he is in possession of the ball? High-level comedy.Being entitled to a spot if you are the first there doesn't preclude the need to have LGP if you come in contact with a ballhandler. Otherwise,what's the point of LGP?

My question was about a high school game situation. I don't care about college rules.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by thedewed

A couple of things: charge is defined as contact with the defender's torso. also, the NCAA rule book says that if a dribbler has established a straight line path, he needs to avoid contact with a defender that has established LGP. The negative implication for all of you logic experts is that he doesn't have to avoid contact with someone in his path that doesn't have LGP. The guy saying dribbling to the basket and into someone that is set up for a rebound, oblivious to the drive, is a 'pushing' foul even though he is in possession of the ball? High-level comedy.Being entitled to a spot if you are the first there doesn't preclude the need to have LGP if you come in contact with a ballhandler. Otherwise,what's the point of LGP?

Good grief. Get you head out of the sand. You have no clue what you're talking about. The POINT of LGP is to allow a defender to be MOVING at the time of contact. But, you probably call a player for a block if they're not set too.

[thedewed]

Head isn't in the sand, I'm very familiar with how that rule works. I would also submit that the requirements for INITIAL LGP are as important as those for MAINTAINING LGP. I suppose you all don't think there are any initial requirements, since driving into a rebounder's back is on the offense. So I guess with the same rationale from you rocket scientists, if that defensive player is lying in front of the basket and a driver runs into him on the way to the basket, you are coming out with a player control foul? The logic is the same.

[BillyMac]

10.7.1 SITUATION A: B1 takes a certain spot on the court
before A1 jumps in the air to catch a pass: (a) A1 lands on B1;
or (b) B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 lands
on one foot and then charges into B1. RULING: In (a) and
(b), the foul is on A1. (4-23-5d)

Why no mention of legal guarding position here?

Because it doesn't apply.

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. A player who
extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not
considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by thedewed

Head isn't in the sand, I'm very familiar with how that rule works. I would also submit that the requirements for INITIAL LGP are as important as those for MAINTAINING LGP. I suppose you all don't think there are any initial requirements, since driving into a rebounder's back is on the offense. So I guess with the same rationale from you rocket scientists, if that defensive player is lying in front of the basket and a driver runs into him on the way to the basket, you are coming out with a player control foul? The logic is the same.

I am going to ignore this for multiple reasons. I just want to say, once again, that I am convinced that it was a "no call" in my original situation. There has been no argument made to change my mind. Have a great day, everyone.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Raymond

My problem with the NFHS case play is "how much space on the floor is the defender entitled to?" If he's a 7 footer, the offensive player has to detour completely around his body? If the defender were upright, he wouldn't be entitled to spread out his arms and take up that much space. A player lying on the floor is no longer within his natural cylinder.

Can a player who is lying down set a legal screen? If 7' tall A2 is prone on the floor, and B1 is guarding A1 and B1 trips over A2, is that a legal screen?

Bueller, Bueller?

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Raymond

My problem with the NFHS case play is "how much space on the floor is the defender entitled to?" If he's a 7 footer, the offensive player has to detour completely around his body? If the defender were upright, he wouldn't be entitled to spread out his arms and take up that much space. A player lying on the floor is no longer within his natural cylinder.

Can a player who is lying down set a legal screen? If 7' tall A2 is prone on the floor, and B1 is guarding A1 and B1 trips over A2, is that a legal screen?

I don't see any 7'ers.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by CJP

I don't see any 7'ers.

Pick a random height and go from there.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Pick a random height and go from there.

It was my nice way to ignore senseless debate.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by CJP

It was my nice way to ignore senseless debate.

Which senseless debate? The one about how much space a screener can take up? Or the one where a defender with his arms or legs extended is responsible for illegal contact?

Folks have a lot of smart-a$$ answers until a citation or rules-based answer is required. That "a prone player is entitled to their spot on the floor" argument has a lot of holes in it, especially without a case play to back it up.