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

Facebook discussion. I referenced this, which was last posted here in 2018:


Apparently that case play no longer exists.

So now that it's gone, what is the justification that this player is in a legal guarding position if contact occurs with a ball-handler?

My problem with this case play has always been that a player lying down on the court is no longer within his natural cylinder. It is akin, to me, to a player having his leg spread way apart.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

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

I am not aware any relevant rule changes that have occurred since the caseplay was removed from the casebook.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the interpretation has, or hasn't, changed.

Interpretations occasionally can, and do, change without rule changes (i.e., infamous backcourt interpretation).

Not sure what happened here. Interpretation change? Not enough room in casebook to keep the interpretation? Hard to tell.

2004-05 NFHS Casebook: 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.

4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent ... 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.

4-37-3: Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided the player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

10-7-1: A player must 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.

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."

Would this then include "prone player foul" on a shot or rebound?

During A1's missed attempt, B3 falls to the ground during rebounding action. A1 gathers the rebound and goes up for the shot again, coming back down and falling over B3 who is still on the ground and not legal. No foul?

JRut video from 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1KESGhlwUo

So is Green #22 entitled to that spot and this is incidental contact?

For me, that's a foul. Easy to adjudicate in NCAA-Men's because it is addressed as not having an LGP.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Not a foul. B3's position, while not LGP, is a legal position....the two are not the same thing.

The NFHS has clearly said that all cases remain valid even after removal from the book unless stated otherwise. The removal of cases without comment is only due to space limitations and not because the case is invalid. Any cases that are to be changed will have a new case indicating the change.

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).
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.

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?

I'm Wearing Second Hand Hats, Second Hand Clothes ...
 

... That's why they call me second hand Rose (Barbra Streisand, 1965)

Camron Rust: I believe you and agree with you. I only know of this "third hand", from Lindsey Atkinson, the NFHS basketball rules editor, to one of the IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters, to me.

What's the origin of your statement?

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1044943