Shooter landing on defender laying on floor

[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.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

Raymond, my apologies. I only have so much energy and I don't want to waste it on your hypothetical scenario. The short answer is if there is a foul, I will know it (a defender lying on the floor and sticking out a leg to trip or reaching an arm out to grab). There was none of this in my original situation.

[just another ref]

LGP is perhaps the most overrated term in the books. I've said it for many years. This thread, I think, backs me up on it.

[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!)

[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.