Shooter landing on defender laying on floor
 

With 5 seconds left in 2nd quarter, A1 is shooting a free throw. The ball comes off the rim and a scramble ensues. Players are on the floor. A2 gains possession and gets a shot off before buzzer. When coming back to the floor, A2 lands on B1. B1 did not slide or roll under A2. A2 rather "floated" over B1 while in the air. I had a no call. There was some discussion at half time that it should have been a foul on B1. We agreed to disagree, it was only a discussion.

I am looking at rules and case plays trying to find an answer. I am okay with a no call but following the logic in case play 10.7.1 a foul could actually be called on A2.

Thoughts??

There's A Difference Between Being Tripped, And Tripping …
 

We have discussed this several times here on the Forum.

In a high school game, there is no foul by B1 in this specific situation.

NFHS 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.

10.6.1 SITUATION E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

There has been heated debate on this issue:

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tml#post973473

NCAA rules may vary.

The "new" 10.7.1 situation A is more applicable in this situation, in my opinion. Which is why I mentioned that if there is a foul, it could be charged to A2. I am still okay with a no call.

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

Old Casebook Plays Never Die, They Just Fade Away …
 

(With apologies to General Douglas MacArthur.)

This is yet another "The Case Of the Unannounced Disappearing For No Known Reason Casebook Play". No apparent rule change. No NFHS announcement. No replacement caseplay. No new interpretation. No NFHS cancellation of the old interpretation. Last appeared in the 2004-05 (goes back to at least 1996-97) NFHS casebook. And then, Penn and Teller made it disappear. How are young officials without old archived casebooks supposed know this interpretation? By the oral tradition of young basketball officials sitting around a campfire listening to stories about old casebook plays from old, grizzled, veteran officials (like Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.)? On the other hand, how is an experienced official who used this interpretation for the many years that it was in the casebook supposed to know that the interpretation has changed?

Get comfortable everybody, because the movie is about to begin, and it going to be a long movie. Almost as long as Gone With The Wind. I'm the guy who looks just like George Clooney.

Spoiler alert, there won't be any closure at the end, just some well thought out opinions from both the protagonists and the antagonists, many of whom are reliable posters on the Forum.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.7...=0&w=300&h=300

Foul. You can’t play legal defense laying on the ground. The “entitled to your spot on the floor” clause does not apply to a player on the ground IMO.

Your opinion, in this case is wrong. As Billy's citation above confirms, the NFHS has made it clear that even a player lying down is entitled to his/her spot. A1 doesn't get to jump on B1 just because B1 is lying on the floor and get the benefit of a foul call.

NFHS made it clear--until the case disappeared from the book. How much weight do you give a 15 year-old interpretation that many officials, having started after the case's disappearance, will not know about? And why was the case removed? Because it was no longer a valid interpretation? How are we to know?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't NCAA-M have a casebook citation validing AremRed's "IMO"? I think so.
It's just that NFHS doesn't. Though it did.

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.

Clearly A2 did not jump vertically so how could it be a foul on B1? If anything could be argued, it would be that A2 did not participate in the principle of verticality and jumped on B1. Ergo, a foul on A2.

In my opinion, it is not a foul on B1.

You may be right, but I would like to see some authority for this. Is this an opinion or a fact?

In any event, even if you are correct, how would you answer the question that BillyMac always brings up: how are newer officials to know?

Have you read 10.7.1 A?

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.

Tune In, Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel ...
 

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

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

Philosophical Question ...
 

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...llen_tree2.jpg

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?

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.

Rule Citation ...
 

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.

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.

"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.

Do you call technical foul every time a team runs out of the locker room around the opposing team?

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

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.

Thanks for the discussion. I am sticking with my no call. I have not seen an argument to change my mind.

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.

+1

NCAA-M different set a rules on this play

If I saw a player lying down on the floor and not getting up, I would stop play, for the sake of player safety. In this way, the entire OP situation would be avoided. Provided that the coach is not beckoned onto the floor, and that the player lying on the floor is not substituted for, he may continue playing.

If A1 contacts B1, it would be a foul against A1 for pushing, holding, or whatever other form of illegal contact that he committed against B1. A player cannot be run over just because he is lying on the floor. If I have stopped play and a player runs into the player on the floor, he will receive an Intentional Foul (Flagrant 1/Unsportsmanlike Foul) at the very least, if not a Flagrant (2)/ Disqualifying Foul.

I'm not a huge "if there's a body on the floor you have to have something guy" anyway.

To back the OP up if there is chaos causing multiple bodies to end up sprawled in front of active shooters/drivers, I had better make sure I'm cleaning up the play that is leading to this if it is in fact rough play and not just a 1 off random event.

If the player is on the floor, not moving and gets tripped over or landed on I've got nothing. However if the player on the floor is moving to get up or putting an arm up even to protect themselves and clips a legs or undercuts a shooter inadvertantly I think you have to call the foul. If they are lying there doing nothing they can't be responsible for the contact, if they re moving to get up or try to get the ball from their back and that movement leads to the contact I have that on them.

A.R. 86. 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.
(Rule 4-17.4.a)

NCAA-M says that this is a foul, not sure that we have definitive ruling from NFHS.

Watch Me Pull A Rabbit Out Of My Hat ...
 

We once had one, and then Penn and Teller made it disappear.

It's probably still in the hat.

I tend to agree with AremRed.

Everybody is entitled to a spot on the floor, laying on the floor is not legal guarding position.

In this particular case, I believe you are correct. I don't think I could call somebody for a foul if they were just laying there and the shooter "floats" ahead and lands on them.

There are times when a player on the ground, whether they were there first or not, can be called for a foul. Am I wrong on this?

Blocking Foul ...
 

Sure, by sticking out an arm, or a leg, any illegal contact that's an effort to trip or block an opponent.

A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress
of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by
bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

So when Laettner steps on Timberlake we feel like that should have been a foul on Timberlake?

If AI had tripped on Ty Lue we want a foul on Lue?


This isn't a LGP issue. I don't think anyone is proposing that you call on offensive foul on the shooter/dribbler here but you can't (IMO) call a foul on the prone player for being run into. If they were on their knees and got run into, if their back was turned and they got run into, etc we wouldn't penalize them with a foul for being in that spot minding their buisness. If offense floats into a defenders shoulder who isn't involved in play we don't call the block on the player who was just there in his own space . . .

You are not wrong. Being on the floor doesn't make a player immune to fouling. They have to do something other than just being there to get a foul.

boy I don't know. It's a pretty well accepted principle of the game that if you are on defense, and a ball possessor contacts you, you better be in LGP or you risk a foul call. You've got to be aware of where the ball is and square up. If you've got your back to the ball and get run into, it's on you, is the way I've always understood it. And that works.

That (pretty much all of your post) can't be further from the truth. If you're calling it that way, you're giving players fouls that don't deserve them in a lot of cases and are guilty of perpetuating incorrect information.

Okay, how about a defensive player standing with his arms out and a dribbler runs into the outstretched arm, no foul? The defensive player was standing there like a statue. If an offensive player with the ball comes in contact with a defensive player that is not in legal guarding position, the responsibility for the contact is on the defensive player. Can someone stand like a statue with his back to a ball handler in front of the basket and take a charge? No. Why not if you are correct?

Yes.

Wow. Never seen it, never will. That's crazy. So explain what the point of lgp even is? That is simply not the way the game is called.

thedewed, you really ought to read (or re-read) the definitions in Rule 4 about guarding and arms and hands, and the contact section of Rule 10. Please note this line, which says nothing about LGP being a prerequisite: "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."

Maybe you should talk this over with some experienced officials you respect.

The player with the arm out is trying to hold space they are not entitled to with their arm. So if the dribbler goes through their arm, AND if the contact has a significant and immediate impact on the offensive player then you can call a foul.

The player standing still backward is entitled to the spot they are holding and are protected from being run into and run over just because of where they choose to stand.

The debate here if you wanted to have one is whether or not a player on the ground can occupy all that space and have it called their's. Back turned, on one leg, sitting, standings, lying down. Players still need and are entitled to a space of their own free from opposing teams running roughshod into/through them.

If a player is not in LGP position to help on the ball carrier, so the ball carrier chooses to jump into their shoulder or side that does not mean that the stationary defender (who has the offense playing pin ball) should or will get a foul called against them.

LGP grants the defense extra privileges in addition to the right to a spot on the floor (provided he gets there first and legally). Namely, LGP allows the defender to move laterally and backwards to maintain LGP.

No official in their right mind is going to not call a block on a player in front of the basket with his back to the basket If a driver makes contact with him. Good luck with that.

I repeat my advice: Talk this over with some experienced officials you respect.

[QUOTE=thedewed;1027428] So explain what the point of lgp even is? /quote]

To allow additional movement by the defender that would otherwise be illegal.

As a practical matter, that's mainly true -- because very few defenders actually are standing still, or moving in the same path and direction as the offensive player. But, if you pay attention, you will see collisions between payers (whether the offensive player has the ball or not) that are properly judged to be "nothing"

B is in a zone defense. A1 catches deep in the corner and squares up to shoot a 3. B1, on the block, turns his back to A1 to prepare for a rebound. A1 puts the ball on the floor and drives baseline. B1 is totally stationary. A1 runs right up his back. You call a block on B1 for this?

Officials that understand the rules will not call that a block. Those that make up their own rules might. Quit making it harder on others by making up your own stuff.

exactly. what have you got, nothing? certainly not a charge. if a defender isn't ball-aware enough to turn and square up, and is in the route of the driver, and there is contact, it's a block.

I suppose if the context isn't a legit bball play, i.e. the dribbler is simply seeking out an unwary defender, rather than making a legit play on the basket, I'd look at it differently, but if a dribbler is making a basketball move and comes in contact with a defensive player, if the defensive player isn't in LGP, if there is enough contact for a foul, the foul is on the defense.

I was officiating games with NBA players over 20 years ago and had them eating out of my hand, via common sense. I don't need to talk to anyone. If anyone can come up with a video of a D1 official calling a charge on a dribbler driving into a defensive player at the basket with his back to him, put it up. It won't happen.

I'm talking about men's basketball here...if it's a non-basketball play, that's different. Same with player on the floor. If a dribbler takes a path intentionally to run over a player on the floor, and it's obvious he's simply trying to get a call from a naive official, I wouldn't make that call. Use common sense.

I've never seen either of these things happen or get called the way you all describe it, ever, at least in D1 or pro.

You all have younger officials on here looking for actual guidance as they progress, I'd be careful filling their heads with inappropriate concepts. The answer here in legit bball plays is, was the defensive player in legal guarding position. If not, it certainly isn't a charge, and is either a no-call or a block.

some of you are reading too much into the 'entitled to a position on the floor' language in the books, that doesn't overrule the need for LGP. If you called a charge in a game where a driver direct to the basket collided with a defensive player that was looking for the rebound and had his back to the drive, you would get laughed out of the gym, if it was men's basketball.

Charge ...
 

Nice realistic (especially if B1 is a secondary defender) scenario. Player control foul on A1, who prevents B1 from having any ability to get a rebound.

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.

A player control foul is simply a "common foul" by a player who is in control of the ball or by an airborne shooter. A common foul is a personal foul which is neither flagrant nor intentional nor committed against a player trying or tapping for a field goal nor part of a double, simultaneous or multiple foul. These are essentially word for word definitions out of the rule book. Neither mention LGP.

Edit:

The definition of a personal foul does not mention LGP either.

LGP position is not the requirement for calling fouls on the offense. If it was rebounding fouls, holding fouls, illegal screens, pushing fouls would not exist.

If you don't want to call a charge because the the defense is not in LGP and taking one in the chest I can see that. However the options are not just no call or call a block.

While both those exist there are a number of other fouls that are not charges that may apply to a player running into another player who is in their cylinder. Simply from the stand point of reducing rough play you would likely be able to justify any number of them.

You're half right. The proper call cannot be a charge. It would be a pushing foul on the offense.

Officials who think a player has to be "set" to take a charge would probably agree with you. It seems that there is still officials who think that this is a "principle" of the game as well.

Hmm. That rule doesn't say anything about the opponent being "squared up".

Wrong.
Wrong.
Bullshitting people for 20 years doesn't make it right.
Then you should stop posting now. You're suggesting people just plays entire by made up rules.....which is wrong any way you look at it.
Only because people like you insist on making up stuff as they go instead of calling it correctly.

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?

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?

The point of LGP is to allow the defender to be moving at the time of contact.

My question was about a high school game situation. I don't care about college rules.

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. :eek:

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.

Charge ...
 

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.

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.

Bueller, Bueller?

I don't see any 7'ers.

Pick a random height and go from there.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Nothing ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

I will.
And I'm in my right mind. (Not left-handed, even.)

For those (the one, only, perhaps) using LGP to defend his position on this NFHS ruling, the player getting run into/over/through IS NOT GUARDING ANYONE. S/he simply has the right to the spot on the floor at the time that s/he was run into/over/through. Legal guarding position has nothing to do with the discussion.
That's NFHS on it.
Easy! :)

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.

Vertical Plane ...
 

You may be correct here:

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

And Truth Isn’t Truth ...
 

“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)

Yep. Ballgame.

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?

Horizontal And Vertical ...
 

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?

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.

The Ghost Of Caseplay Past ...
 

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.

It Could That Happen ...
 

Heard that there was a 6' 9" kid in a middle school game last week.

His team lost.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.2...=0&w=265&h=161

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!)

Bump.