Tripped Or Tripping ...

[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.