Shooter landing on defender laying on floor

[CJP]

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??

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by CJP

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 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.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.

[grunewar]

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

[BillyMac]

(With apologies to General Douglas MacArthur.)

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

[LRZ]

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?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by LRZ

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?

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.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by CJP

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??

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.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by bucky

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.

[LRZ]

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.

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?

[CJP]

Originally Posted by LRZ

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?

[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.