After 20 years the NFHS has changed its ruling

[Nevadaref]

From the NFHS Case Book 2004-05
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. (7-4-1, 2)

The above was removed without comment for the 2005-06 NFHS season.

Making an appearance in the 2024-25 NFHS Case Book and again this season:
4.23.1 Situation: (a) A1 is dribbling the ball; (b) A1 secures a rebound; or (c) A1 has returned to the floor after releasing a try for goal. In all cases, A1 trips over B1 who is lying on the floor, causing A1 to fall to the floor and/or lose control of the ball. Ruling: In (a), (b) and (c), blocking foul on B1. Comment: Lying on the playing court is not considered a legal guarding position. (4-23-2)

[BillyMac]

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1052537

[JRutledge]

This was an editorial change last year. It makes pretty much every level the same in this respect. Good change.

Peace

[Raymond]

For the entirety of my membership on this site, which may be 20 years, I've always argued that the NFHS had a stupid ruling as lying prone on the floor grossly expands a person's natural cylinder or body width or whatever phrase you want to use.

I remember they changed it last year. It was about time.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by Raymond

For the entirety of my membership on this site, which may be 20 years, I've always argued that the NFHS had a stupid ruling as lying prone on the floor grossly expands a person's natural cylinder or body width or whatever phrase you want to use.

I remember they changed it last year. It was about time.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

The ruling however was consistent with the rules. The new case is not