Shooter landing on defender laying on floor

[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 Raymond

... we no longer have a case play that says a prone player is entitled to his spot on the floor.

Your posts are rational and intelligent and may, indeed, be correct.

Based on 4-23-1, no apparent relevant rule changes since the caseplay was removed, and no announcement as to why it was removed (with nothing different to replace it), I'm sticking to the caseplay "ghost", but acknowledge that I may be absolutely wrong in doing so.

Stupid NFHS.

[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.