Shooter landing on defender laying on floor

[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...."

[SNIPERBBB]

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...."

But what do you tell the coach when they ask "what did the offender do wrong?".

A contact foul has to be caused by a player doing something illegal. Falling down isn't illegal unless we are going to get into the flopping debate.

[CJP]

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...."

10.7.1 A supports a foul on the offense for (a) A1 landing on B1 (b) A1 charging into B1. If a player lying on the floor does not get this call, the case would make more sense if it did not have the "landing on" language.

[LRZ]

"But what do you tell the coach when they ask 'what did the offender do wrong?'"

"No LGP, Coach."

The disagreement here centers on different understandings of what is meant by B1 taking a spot on the court, if it means LGP or if it includes lying on the court. Arem Red's statement--"You can’t play legal defense laying on the ground"--makes more sense to me.

I've offered my take, YMMV. OK.

[thedewed]

I always thought defense responsible for contact unless in LGP. they are entitled to a position as long as in LGP.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by LRZ

"But what do you tell the coach when they ask 'what did the offender do wrong?'"

"No LGP, Coach."

The disagreement here centers on different understandings of what is meant by B1 taking a spot on the court, if it means LGP or if it includes lying on the court. Arem Red's statement--"You can’t play legal defense laying on the ground"--makes more sense to me.

I've offered my take, YMMV. OK.

What if the player was instead of lying on the floor, a defensive player standing with his back to the offensive player? Free license to run the defender over? No LGP there.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

You continue to prove that it is in the sand by continuing to insist that the ruling is somehow related to LGP. In doing so, you continue to expose that you have no idea when LGP applies and doesn't apply. Keep denying simply concepts that are laid out in plain black & white. Your credibility shrinks with each post.

Enough energy wasted on a lost cause, I'm out. I'll spend my efforts on people that actually want to learn.