Tripped Or Tripping ...
 

While there's still a difference between being tripped, and tripping, the NFHS will finally fully clear up a twenty-year old controversy, tripping over an opponent on the floor.

Thanks to the efforts of an IAABO Co-coordinator who is on the NFHS Rules Committee, new plays that clearly outline this concept will be added to the NFHS Casebook this season. IAABO has followed suit and added Play Situations 10-8 and 10-9 to the IAABO Rules Guide as well. IAABO now calls NFHS Casebook Plays "Play Situations".

PLAY 10-8: NEW A‑1 is dribbling and trips over B‑1 who is lying on the floor, causing A‑1 to fall to the floor and/or lose control of the ball. 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: NEW A‑1 secures a rebound and trips over B‑1 who is lying on the floor, causing A‑1 to fall to the floor and/or lose control of the ball. 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.

Old casebook play:

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.

The 10.6.1 Situation E interpretation disappeared from the casebook in 2005-06. No relevant rules have changed since this casebook play appeared in 2004-05, nor have any conflicting interpretations been published by the NFHS, until now.

Lindsey Atkinson, the NFHS rules editor for basketball, has stated (September 23, 2021) that as long as there are no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, old vanished interpretations are still officially considered to be valid by the NFHS. She also stated that usual reason for still valid casebook plays to be dropped is due to page limitations, when a new caseplay goes in, one usually has to come out.

Now we finally have an interpretation change to hang our hat on.

If this is a true change, then it is good. I wish the NF would announce this stuff to us that this is changing, but it is good. It makes it in line with other levels and logic.

Peace

Town Crier "Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Hear Ye" …
 

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

Abracadabra ...
 

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

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?

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

Incidental Contact ...
 

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

Tripping Or Being Triped ...
 

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.

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?

Old Timers ...
 

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.

So finally rulings that match the common sense that I've been preaching all this time.

Lying on the floor puts you outside of your natural cylinder. It took many years of an intentional lack of brain power to allow the previous ruling to stand. It had been without a doubt the stupidest interpretation I had come across.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

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.

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?

He can start a dribble and get up.

Options ...
 

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.

180 degrees
 

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 :D

Mr. Fiore, My High School Geometry Teacher ...
 

... taught me well.

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

https://snoopn4pnuts.com/cdn/shop/pr...g?v=1658606997

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?

On The Floor ...
 

Wait? What?

B1 jumps and catches a rebound after a try and while B1 is still airborne B1 starts a dribble by pushing the ball to the floor.

Legal.

Well, I remember there was some nonobvious condition to starting a dribble that was brought up by someone here.

Starting A Dribble ...
 

2000-2001 NFHS Basketball Interpretations Supplement #1 Situation 1: A1 is an airborne shooter preparing to release the ball on a shot attempt. Instead of releasing the ball on the try, A1 fumbles the ball (while still in the air) and drops it. A1 then returns to the floor and secures possession of the ball. Ruling: Traveling violation. While airborne the ball must be released for a try or pass.

Also (from Misunderstood Rules list):

If a defender puts a hand(s) on a ball controlled by a shooter (or passer) who is airborne, such that the airborne player is unable to release the ball, it is a held ball. If, in another similar situation, the airborne player loses control of the ball because of the touch, then this is simply a blocked shot. It is not a violation for that player to start a dribble at that point. If, in a similar situation, the defender simply touches the ball, and the airborne player chooses not to release the ball, and returns to the floor holding the ball, it’s a traveling violation.

When an airborne player tries for goal (or pass), sees that the try (or pass) will be blocked, purposely drops the ball, and touches the ball after it hits the floor, that player has traveled by starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor. If an airborne player is preparing to release the ball on a shot attempt (or pass), and instead of releasing the ball, fumbles the ball (while still in the air), drops the ball, and then returns to the floor and secures possession of the ball, it’s a traveling violation.

So if you gain control of the ball by diving for it and have landed with neither foot on the floor, don't you have to put at least one foot down (i.e. have some part of it touch the floor) to start a dribble?

OK, then, after doing that you could slam the ball down hard enough that it rises to give you time to stand and catch it.

No.

The pivot foot cannot be LIFTED before starting a dribble. If it was never on the floor, it can't be lifted.