Shooter landing on defender laying on floor

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Foul. You can’t play legal defense laying on the ground. The “entitled to your spot on the floor” clause does not apply to a player on the ground IMO.

Your opinion, in this case is wrong. As Billy's citation above confirms, the NFHS has made it clear that even a player lying down is entitled to his/her spot. A1 doesn't get to jump on B1 just because B1 is lying on the floor and get the benefit of a foul call.

[LRZ]

NFHS made it clear--until the case disappeared from the book. How much weight do you give a 15 year-old interpretation that many officials, having started after the case's disappearance, will not know about? And why was the case removed? Because it was no longer a valid interpretation? How are we to know?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by LRZ

NFHS made it clear--until the case disappeared from the book. How much weight do you give a 15 year-old interpretation that many officials, having started after the case's disappearance, will not know about? And why was the case removed? Because it was no longer a valid interpretation? How are we to know?

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.

[LRZ]

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.

You may be right, but I would like to see some authority for this. Is this an opinion or a fact?

In any event, even if you are correct, how would you answer the question that BillyMac always brings up: how are newer officials to know?

[CJP]

Originally Posted by LRZ

You may be right, but I would like to see some authority for this. Is this an opinion or a fact?

In any event, even if you are correct, how would you answer the question that BillyMac always brings up: how are newer officials to know?

Have you read 10.7.1 A?

[LRZ]

Yes, I have read 10.7.1A. It does not say that cases remain applicable after they disappear from case books. The authority I asked for is about the position that cases remain valid even after they are no longer in the book.

Nor does 10.7.1A say that players who have fallen are entitled to that position, as did the previous case. It may be interpreted that way, but it is in no way as clear as 10.6.1E.

You seem to be saying that 10.7.1A controls; Camron Rust seems to be saying that 10.6.1E still controls. I was responding to the latter.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by LRZ

Yes, I have read 10.7.1A. It does not say that cases remain applicable after they disappear from case books. The authority I asked for is about the position that cases remain valid even after they are no longer in the book.

Nor does 10.7.1A say that players who have fallen are entitled to that position, as did the previous case. It may be interpreted that way, but it is in no way as clear as 10.6.1E.

You seem to be saying that 10.7.1A controls; Camron Rust seems to be saying that 10.6.1E still controls. I was responding to the latter.

I think 10.7.1A covers the old 10.6.1E. It does it with much less verbiage.

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.

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

[bucky]

Also, how should we handle cases found in case books of one level but not in another? Should we apply the case play from one level to another (presuming no real rule differences and that situations are similar)?

I have found case plays in the NCAAM case book and used them as a way to rule a situation in NFHS. (plays/rules were identical)

[CJP]

Originally Posted by bucky

Also, how should we handle cases found in case books of one level but not in another? Should we apply the case play from one level to another (presuming no real rule differences and that situations are similar)?

I have found case plays in the NCAAM case book and used them as a way to rule a situation in NFHS. (plays/rules were identical)

Start a new thread.

[CJP]

Thanks for the discussion. I am sticking with my no call. I have not seen an argument to change my mind.

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.

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Your opinion, in this case is wrong. As Billy's citation above confirms, the NFHS has made it clear that even a player lying down is entitled to his/her spot. A1 doesn't get to jump on B1 just because B1 is lying on the floor and get the benefit of a foul call.

+1

NCAA-M different set a rules on this play

[ilyazhito]

If I saw a player lying down on the floor and not getting up, I would stop play, for the sake of player safety. In this way, the entire OP situation would be avoided. Provided that the coach is not beckoned onto the floor, and that the player lying on the floor is not substituted for, he may continue playing.

If A1 contacts B1, it would be a foul against A1 for pushing, holding, or whatever other form of illegal contact that he committed against B1. A player cannot be run over just because he is lying on the floor. If I have stopped play and a player runs into the player on the floor, he will receive an Intentional Foul (Flagrant 1/Unsportsmanlike Foul) at the very least, if not a Flagrant (2)/ Disqualifying Foul.

[Pantherdreams]

I'm not a huge "if there's a body on the floor you have to have something guy" anyway.

To back the OP up if there is chaos causing multiple bodies to end up sprawled in front of active shooters/drivers, I had better make sure I'm cleaning up the play that is leading to this if it is in fact rough play and not just a 1 off random event.

If the player is on the floor, not moving and gets tripped over or landed on I've got nothing. However if the player on the floor is moving to get up or putting an arm up even to protect themselves and clips a legs or undercuts a shooter inadvertantly I think you have to call the foul. If they are lying there doing nothing they can't be responsible for the contact, if they re moving to get up or try to get the ball from their back and that movement leads to the contact I have that on them.