Tripped Or Tripping ...

[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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Agree with you, thus my post title, "Incidental Contact".

Also agree with you that this is not a guarding situation, in fact, both new interpretations don't talk about "legal guarding position", but rather about "legal position".

Of course, even with no ball involved, with one player on the floor, we could still have a foul if the player on the floor extends an arm, leg, etc., to trip his opponent.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The ruling talks about the ball.

PLAY 10-8: RULING: This is a blocking foul on B‑1. Lying on the playing court is not considered a legal position. If contact with an opponent who is lying on the floor inhibits freedom of movement or prevents the ability to perform normal offensive or defensive maneuvers, it is a foul.

PLAY 10-9: RULING: This is a blocking foul on B‑1. Lying on the playing court is not considered a legal position. If contact with an opponent who is lying on the floor inhibits freedom of movement or prevents the ability to perform normal offensive or defensive maneuvers, it is a foul.

Maybe we are not discussing the same thing. I do not see the "ball" mentioned in the ruling.


I can see where you are going with regards to guarding but the ruling has a blanket statement involving lying on the court being illegal. So, how does that apply to other situations? or, does lying on the court being illegal only apply to these 2 situations?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

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?

Originally Posted by bucky

... the ruling has a blanket statement involving lying on the court being illegal. So, how does that apply to other situations? or, does lying on the court being illegal only apply to these 2 situations?

Bucky: Yeah, I see your point. Have these two interpretations created more problems than they solved?

Well, at least we got rid of the twenty year old, one and done, seldom enforced, interpretation that only old timers remembered.

[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?

[Altor]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Is there a reasonable method by which that player can get off the floor with the ball without taking 2 steps?

He can start a dribble and get up.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Or is that player's only feasible option to try to pass the ball from that position?

Also start a dribble (if not having already dribbled), try for goal, or request a timeout.

If flat on back, may sit up without violating.

In forty-plus years, I've only had single player attempt a try for goal from the floor.

Unfortunately, he missed.

[Zoochy]

Or as was discussed, in one of my previous posts, the player with control of the ball lying on the ground may roll no more than 180 degrees

[BillyMac]

... taught me well.

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Or as was discussed, in one of my previous posts, the player with control of the ball lying on the ground may roll no more than 180 degrees.

Which is exactly why I carry a protractor in my pocket along with a spare whistle.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Also start a dribble (if not having already dribbled), try for goal, or request a timeout.

If flat on back, may sit up without violating.

In forty-plus years, I've only had single player attempt a try for goal from the floor.

Unfortunately, he missed.

I was 1 for 1 in such attempt in Columbia's gym. A fellow student said I should do ads for NY Telephone.

Meanwhile, didn't we have someone here point out that you can't start a dribble without a foot on the floor? But I guess nothing says you have to have weight on that foot; it's not like wrestling rules with supporting points.

Could you roll off the ball to set a pick, like how I set a ruck (illegally, because I never touched the ball in my dive near it) in rugby?