Tripped Or Tripping ...

[BillyMac]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[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

[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]

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

[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.