Shooter landing on defender laying on floor

[thedewed]

try using logic and extrapolate from these examples in the casebook:

B1 slips to the floor in the free-throw lane. A1 (with his back to B1,
who is prone) receives a pass, turns and, in his attempt to drive to the basket,
trips and falls over B1.
RULING: Foul on B1, who is not in a legal guarding position.

Me: why is it necessary to mention that B1 is not in LGP if it doesn't matter? Because it does matter.

A.R. 101. Player A1 attempts a shot, which bounces off the rim.
1. Player A2, who is in the lane area, grabs an offensive rebound and
immediately attempts a put back and crashes into the torso of B2, who is
grounded on the court within the restricted area; or
2. Player A2, who is located on the wing just inside the three-point line,
gains possession of a long rebound and immediately drives to the basket
with no defender. Player A2 crashes into the torso of B2, who is grounded
on the court within the restricted area.
RULING 1: When A2 rebounds the ball and immediately makes a
move to the basket, there is no secondary defender and the restricted
area rule is not in effect.
2: When B2 has established and maintained a legal guarding position
and illegal contact occurs, it is player-control/charging foul on A2.
(Rule 4-36.3, 4-31 and 10-1.14

Me: Why point out that B2 has established and maintained LGP if it doesn't matter? Because it does matter.

This is all in the same books that say this:

Every player shall be entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided
that such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

[SNIPERBBB]

We are discussing NFHS rules not NCAA which we know has a different ruling for this play

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thedewed

Why point out that B2 has established and maintained LGP if it doesn't matter? Because it does matter.

It doesn't matter here:

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)

Nothing about B1 initially having both feet touching the playing court.

Nothing about the front of the B1's torso facing A1.

Nothing at all about initial legal guarding position.

Nothing, and yet the NFHS confidently rules this a charge on A1.

Legal guarding position does not matter in NFHS plays like this.

[thedewed]

Nah, you guys are overthinking it. This is in the NCAA casebook. They probably figure people will use common sense and not spell out every little thing. These books are written by human beings lol:

A.R. 87. B1 takes a spot on the playing court before A1 jumps to catch a pass.
1. A1 returns to the playing court and lands on B1; or
2. B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 comes to the floor on
one foot and then charges into B1.
RULING: In both (1) and (2), the foul shall be on A1. In (1), B1
is entitled to that spot on the floor provided he gets there legally
before the offensive player becomes airborne. However, in (2), when
A1 possesses the ball then lands on the floor, no time and distance is
required.

Me: again, this example is in the same book as the earlier example saying it was a block because the guy was on the floor, and thus not in LGP. So LGP is needed, just not spelled out, probably because no one in the history of the game would ever think that readers wouldn't already know that that is a given.

[SNIPERBBB]

We arent overthinking it...this is a NFHS play and you're using NCAA rules.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

We arent overthinking it...this is a NFHS play and you're using NCAA rules.

Not to mention that he's still wrong under NCAA rules for everything else in this thread.

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

We arent overthinking it...this is a NFHS play and you're using NCAA rules.

I'm merely pointing out that the college book has the same language as the NFHS book. My goodness lol. No one that has played or officiated at a high level would stomach a charge being called on a driver into the back of someone under the basket. ever. Puhleeze.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by thedewed

I'm merely pointing out that the college book has the same language as the NFHS book. My goodness lol. No one that has played or officiated at a high level would stomach a charge being called on a driver into the back of someone under the basket. ever. Puhleeze.

The NCAA-M has a casebook that covers it. The NFHS, maintaining a different approved ruling, does not. No one that has played or offiicated on an NFHS level would stomach a NCAA-M call being made on a play during a high school game.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It doesn't matter here:

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)

Nothing about B1 initially having both feet touching the playing court.

Nothing about the front of the B1's torso facing A1.

Nothing at all about initial legal guarding position.

Nothing, and yet the NFHS confidently rules this a charge on A1.

Legal guarding position does not matter in NFHS plays like this.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

... someone on the floor setting a screen as screeners are vertical.

You may be correct here:

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

[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 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.