Shooter landing on defender laying on floor

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

Just because the words are not there does not mean that the words are not there.

“No, it isn’t truth! Truth isn’t truth because it’s somebody’s version of the truth, not the truth.” (Rudy Giuliani, August, 2018)

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by bucky

I would not necessarily say all of that BM. Just because the words are not there does not mean that the words are not there. In other words, it may not say it, but it references rule 4-23-5d and that rule explicitly discusses obtaining legal position. Additionally, rule 4-23 mentions both feet touching the playing court, initial legal guarding position, etc. Now, that is not exactly what you wrote but I think you get my point. The case may not say things but rules that they reference might.



And not sure why Raymond is going on about someone on the floor setting a screen as screeners are vertical.

Yep. Ballgame.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You may be correct here:

The screener must stay within his/her vertical plane with a stance approximately shoulder width apart.

I prefer the phrase "vertical cylinder" but the NFHS sticks to "vertical plane".

Can defender have their legs and arms outside of their vertical plane? Can a defender have his leg outstretched and have contact with a ball-handler? Can he stand with his arm out-stretched and have a ball-handler run into it? What is the verticality space of a player who is prone on the court?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

What is the vertical space of a player who is prone on the court?

Exactly my point. A player standing on the court has a vertical plane while a player laying on the floor has a horizontal plane.

NFHS rules regarding a player's legal posture usually assume that a player is standing up and use the term vertical regarding such. These rules seldom take into consideration that a player may be laying on the floor, thus the almost complete lack of the term horizontal in rules describing a player's legal posture, in fact it's quite the opposite, the term horizontal often describes a player's illegal posture.

Are we to assume that once a player falls to the floor that rules using the term vertical should now be mentally changed to the term horizontal?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

...

Are we to assume that once a player falls to the floor that rules using the term vertical should now be mentally changed to the term horizontal?

I'm saying a player is entitled to a spot on the floor WITHIN his vertical plane. A prone player is outside of his vertical plane. There is always a blanket statement that a player is entitled to his spot on the floor, with no qualifications. Well, we already know a prone player who contacts a defender is responsible for an illegal screen. We already know a stationary defender with his arms outstretched is responsible for illegal contact to his arms, no matter how stationary he is and how long he has been there. And we no longer have a case play that says a prone player is entitled to his spot on the floor. Defense is based on the principles of LGP and/or verticality.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

... we no longer have a case play that says a prone player is entitled to his spot on the floor.

Your posts are rational and intelligent and may, indeed, be correct.

Based on 4-23-1, no apparent relevant rule changes since the caseplay was removed, and no announcement as to why it was removed (with nothing different to replace it), I'm sticking to the caseplay "ghost", but acknowledge that I may be absolutely wrong in doing so.

Stupid NFHS.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by CJP

I don't see any 7'ers.

Heard that there was a 6' 9" kid in a middle school game last week.

His team lost.

[chapmaja]

I would add this part of the rulebook (at least from the 2012-2013 book).

Part of the definition of 4-23-1 states " every player is entitled to a sport on the playing court provide such player gets their FIRST without illegally contacting an opponent."

The player got to the spot on the floor first, and did so without illegal contacting an opponent, therefore I have nothing on team B and an argument could be made for a foul on Team A for landing on the player.

Personally I am not calling anything on this play.

[jmwking]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I would add this part of the rulebook (at least from the 2012-2013 book).

Part of the definition of 4-23-1 states " every player is entitled to a sport on the playing court provide such player gets their FIRST without illegally contacting an opponent."

The player got to the spot on the floor first, and did so without illegal contacting an opponent, therefore I have nothing on team B and an argument could be made for a foul on Team A for landing on the player.

Personally I am not calling anything on this play.

Tweet! Grammar!

(Grammar got run over by a reindeer... Happy and safe holidays, everyone!)

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Philosophies and principles remain unless and until something says otherwise. If we limited how we do things and how things are called to only what is in the rule book and case book, the game would look dramatically different than it does. Cases are removed due to space limitations. When they are reversed, there is typically a case expressing the new ruling. Without that, it is still valid.

Originally Posted by AremRed

Do you call technical foul every time a team runs out of the locker room around the opposing team?

Bump.