Shooter landing on defender laying on floor

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Just discussed this type of play during our pre-game last night.......

And so (BillyMac said with bated breath) ...

Don't give us "What happens in the locker room stays in the locker room".

[BillyMac]

If a casebook play falls in a forest and no one is around to read it, is it still a casebook play?

[LRZ]

Another, related question is how do you cite such a case to a coach? "Jack, there was a case 15 years ago that said...."

[CJP]

Originally Posted by LRZ

Another, related question is how do you cite such a case to a coach? "Jack, there was a case 15 years ago that said...."

Does 10.7.1 A cover it? Why or why not?

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

Another, related question is how do you cite such a case to a coach?

I wouldn't cite the caseplay, I would just cite the rule.

"Coach, the rule states that every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent".

I could follow up with, "There's a difference between being tripped, and tripping".

I used this statement successfully in the past for a few different situations.

It seems to work.

[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.

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?

[thedewed]

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

[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.