Tripped Or Tripping ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I wish the NF would announce this stuff to us that this is changing, but it is good.

Doesn't the NFHS usually list case play revisions at the beginning of the NFHS Casebook, in addition to highlighting, in dark gray, recent changes within the text of the Casebook?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Doesn't the NFHS usually list case play revisions at the beginning of the NFHS Casebook, in addition to highlighting, in dark gray, recent changes within the text of the Casebook?

No, they do not. Not plays they added to the book. They do highlight plays that are a changed or added, but it is not in the front of the book automatically. Often you have to read the book and then figure out it was something they added or look at old books to see if it was there before.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No, they do not. Not plays they added to the book. They do highlight plays that are a changed or added, but it is not in the front of the book automatically. Often you have to read the book and then figure out it was something they added or look at old books to see if it was there before.

Yeah, I do recall that it's often difficult to keep track of Casebook revisions, especially "disappearing" interpretations.

[bucky]

How about if....

A1 dives for a loose ball and secures control while lying on the court. B1 jumps directly onto A1 in an attempt to for a held ball.

Is A1 called for a violation for being in an illegal position? Is B1 called for a foul? Can both wrestle and force a held ball?


Usually, this type of play would result in a foul being called on B1, since A1 had a legal right to be there. Now, if lying on the court is not considered to be a legal position, how shall this be adjudicated?

Or,

A1 dives for a loose ball and secures control while lying on the court. B1 simply runs and trips on A1. Is this then a foul on A1?

[JRutledge]

The two plays added or mentioned involved a player with the ball. B1 in your situation does not have the ball, A1 does. Not the same situation we are discussing.

Peacre

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The two plays added or mentioned involved a player with the ball. B1 in your situation does not have the ball, A1 does. Not the same situation we are discussing.

Let's take the ball completely out of the picture.

A1 is dribbling the ball in the backcourt. In the frontcourt, A2 accidentally trips due to his untied shoelace and falls to the floor. B2 contacts and trips over A2 who has not extended arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s), or knee(s), or bent his/her body into other than a normal position.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Let's take the ball completely out of the picture.

A1 is dribbling the ball in the backcourt. In the frontcourt, A2 accidentally trips due to his untied shoelace and falls to the floor. B2 contacts and trips over A2 who has not extended arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s), or knee(s), or bent his/her body into other than a normal position.

The ruling talks about the ball. So you cannot change the situation unless they say that just falling over someone applies too. Both situations involved the ball. The NCAA changed their interpretations based on the ball being in a player's hand. I would still think players who fall over each other without the ball would be treated the same. They are not "guarding" in the same sense.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bucky

How about if....



A1 dives for a loose ball and secures control while lying on the court. B1 jumps directly onto A1 in an attempt to for a held ball.



Is A1 called for a violation for being in an illegal position? Is B1 called for a foul? Can both wrestle and force a held ball?





Usually, this type of play would result in a foul being called on B1, since A1 had a legal right to be there. Now, if lying on the court is not considered to be a legal position, how shall this be adjudicated?


...

Jumping on somebody is not a natural offensive or defensive movement.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Jumping on somebody is not a natural offensive or defensive movement.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

It isn't? Maybe it shouldn't be, but it frequently is...at least in the case I described whereby someone secures control of the ball while lying on the floor. Players routinely think it is OK to jump on someone because it is a "loose" ball or they were "playing the ball."

Anyway, I do have to somewhat agree with you Raymond.

Try another angle. A1 dives and secures the ball and is lying on the floor. B1, in a "natural defensive movement" attempts to approach A1 and trips on A1's foot. Is that to be deemed a foul on A1? Isn't lying on the floor an illegal position?

This is the type of play where making that blanket statement does not always fit and now interpretation of the case comes into play. Now, if they want to specify that lying on the floor is illegal in these specific instances, then officials know.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bucky

It isn't? Maybe it shouldn't be, but it frequently is...at least in the case I described whereby someone secures control of the ball while lying on the floor. Players routinely think it is OK to jump on someone because it is a "loose" ball or they were "playing the ball."

Anyway, I do have to somewhat agree with you Raymond.

Try another angle. A1 dives and secures the ball and is lying on the floor. B1, in a "natural defensive movement" attempts to approach A1 and trips on A1's foot. Is that to be deemed a foul on A1? Isn't lying on the floor an illegal position?

This is the type of play where making that blanket statement does not always fit and now interpretation of the case comes into play. Now, if they want to specify that lying on the floor is illegal in these specific instances, then officials know.

So how would you want the game to proceed in a basketball-like manner once a player dives and secures the ball? Is there a reasonable method by which that player can get off the floor with the ball without taking 2 steps? (I figure it's possible only if the player's feet were not touching the floor at or subsequent to the time s/he got possession.) Or is that player's only feasible option to try to pass the ball from that position?

The only game I can think of with a similar question is Rugby Union, in which a player is allowed to dive for the ball but is not allowed to remain on the ground with it or in its vicinity. The referee looks for whether the initial dive was a bona fide attempt to get the ball, whether the player stays on the ground with or near the ball to gain an advantage once there, and whether opposing players are preventing that player from getting up or crawling away from the ball. Unlike basketball, there's no "steps" provision, so the player on the ground with the ball may either pass it, leave it, or get up with it -- but there is an analogous "traveling" provision in that the player is not allowed to crawl with the ball.

Could basketball be construed similarly, with being on the floor with the ball as an illegal position only if the player remains there without trying to get rid of the ball? And being on the floor without the ball being illegal only if the player remains there to take advantage of that position?