High school rule: player entitled to his space on the floor

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

Per Jon Levinson's dialogue with his counterpart at the NFHS office that he shared with us on FB today:

"As promised, this is what I got from "up on high": The NFHS Basketball Rules would not consider incidental contact (even though not in a legal guarding position) as a foul in this scenario. Player B1 is not in a legal guarding position by 4-23-2 standards, but “every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such a player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.” (4-23-1) If contact with B1 is avoidable and they do not impede the progress of A1 – incidental contact.

The NFHS rules would only rule contact as a foul if B1 impeded or initiated contact with the offensive player."

The FED case play had "In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor." -- that seems like more than incidental contact. I'm not sure the clarification from Jon helps (and I'm not blaming Jon for this)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The FED case play had "In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor." -- that seems like more than incidental contact. I'm not sure the clarification from Jon helps (and I'm not blaming Jon for this)

I agree. Whomever Jon was corresponding with didn't really address the issue. That seems to be a pattern for these unofficial answers from the NFHS.

Incidental contact is not a foul, prone or not prone.

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The FED case play had "In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor." -- that seems like more than incidental contact. I'm not sure the clarification from Jon helps (and I'm not blaming Jon for this)

That wasn't how I read his reply. I took it to mean if B1 was essentially still (motionless, perhaps?), then it wasn't B1's fault that A1 couldn't dribble away cleanly when A1 contacted B1's leg.

[tnolan]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Now that the case play is gone from NFHS, I can rule it the same in HS without anybody being able to say I'm wrong by rule.

Case play or not, I believe you are correct by rule. Especially when protecting an airborne shooter or rebounder.
And once you're on the ground, you no longer hold LGP status. Not a perfect example of the same play as the OP topic case was only while dribbling.

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

That wasn't how I read his reply. I took it to mean if B1 was essentially still (motionless, perhaps?), then it wasn't B1's fault that A1 couldn't dribble away cleanly when A1 contacted B1's leg.

This does sound like a pretty specific scenario where the onus was on A1 to avoid B1 and they did not. It'd still be tough to rule this as incidental though...A1 is legal, B1 is not. A1 is then thrown off their path and loses the ball, possibly resulting in a turnover and points for B. Sounds advantageous for B to me.

Incidental contact normally occurs between 2 LGP players or 2 non-LGP players, where no advantage is gained by the contact either way.

[thumpferee]

The way I'm interpreting the rule is "because A1 created the contact, it is ruled incidental contact".

Obviously, if B1 was "falling" and contact was made, it would be a different story.

No "cheap" foul here!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tnolan

Case play or not, I believe you are correct by rule. Especially when protecting an airborne shooter or rebounder.
And once you're on the ground, you no longer hold LGP status. Not a perfect example of the same play as the OP topic case was only while dribbling.

LGP is not required to have a legal position. LGP only permits the player to be jumping or moving at the time of contact. A stationary player, if they got to the spot in time to get stationary, generally has a legal position in NFHS rules (NCAA rules differ on this).

Originally Posted by tnolan

This does sound like a pretty specific scenario where the onus was on A1 to avoid B1 and they did not. It'd still be tough to rule this as incidental though...A1 is legal, B1 is not. A1 is then thrown off their path and loses the ball, possibly resulting in a turnover and points for B. Sounds advantageous for B to me.

B1 actually is legal. B1 just doesn't have LGP. Think of the rebounder that has inside position when the rebound goes long. A1 secures the long rebound and then crashes into the back of stationary B1 (who was standing there since the original shot). This is a foul on A1, not B1, even though B1 never had LGP (wasn't facing). B1 had a legal position, however....B1 was in the spot first.

Originally Posted by tnolan

Incidental contact normally occurs between 2 LGP players or 2 non-LGP players, where no advantage is gained by the contact either way.

[tnolan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Think of the rebounder that has inside position when the rebound goes long. A1 secures the long rebound and then crashes into the back of stationary B1 (who was standing there since the original shot). This is a foul on A1, not B1, even though B1 never had LGP (wasn't facing). B1 had a legal position, however....B1 was in the spot first.

This example makes the most sense in separating LGP from legal position. So again, we can just go back to the responsibility of one player, to avoid the other, as everyone is entitled to their space.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tnolan

This example makes the most sense in separating LGP from legal position. So again, we can just go back to the responsibility of one player, to avoid the other, as everyone is entitled to their space.

Does this also apply to a screener or defender who has their legs extended way outside their natural base? They are entitled to all space from one foot to the other?

[tnolan]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Does this also apply to a screener or defender who has their legs extended way outside their natural base? They are entitled to all space from one foot to the other?

It wouldn't apply to a screener, as we now bring in LSP (legal screening position) I heart acronyms.
Screener must stay within vertical plane and stance approx shoulder width.

Defender though, I'd say yes. As long as they have first established LGP, then they can maintain LP.