Need an interpretation

[Grant]

On a rebound a player goes up and gets the rebound as he is coming down he falls on a player that is on the floor. what is the proper call is it a travel a foul on the player that is on the floor for not being in a legal guarding position or could you just blow your whistle and give it back to offense

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Grant
On a rebound a player goes up and gets the rebound as he is coming down he falls on a player that is on the floor. what is the proper call is it a travel a foul on the player that is on the floor for not being in a legal guarding position or could you just blow your whistle and give it back to offense

Travel.

[mick]

Originally posted by Grant
On a rebound a player goes up and gets the rebound as he is coming down he falls on a player that is on the floor. what is the proper call is it a travel a foul on the player that is on the floor for not being in a legal guarding position or could you just blow your whistle and give it back to offense

If the rebounder falls to the floor while in possession of the ball, I'll have the contact as incidental and the rebounder with a traveling violation.
mick

[Grant]

does this rule come into play or not the defensive play is not in a legal guarding position
3. BR-72, Rule 4-33, Guarding: B1 slips to the floor in the free-throw lane. A1 (with his or her back to prone B1) receives a pass, turns and, in his or her attempt to drive to the basket, trips and falls over B1. RULING: Foul on B1, who has taken an illegal defensive position (NCAA memorandum January 23, 1996, page 3).

[mick]

Originally posted by Grant
does this rule come into play or not the defensive play is not in a legal guarding position
3. BR-72, Rule 4-33, Guarding: B1 slips to the floor in the free-throw lane. A1 (with his or her back to prone B1) receives a pass, turns and, in his or her attempt to drive to the basket, trips and falls over B1. RULING: Foul on B1, who has taken an illegal defensive position (NCAA memorandum January 23, 1996, page 3).

I judge that no, 4-33 does not apply.
Mileage may vary.
mick

[Grant]

Thanks Mic but here is the problem it is the defensive player not in a legal guarding position that caused the travel. If the defender had stuck out his knee and caused it you would call a foul wouldn't you

[zebraman]

Grant,

The memorandum you posted is from the NCAA. I'm assuming that you are talking about NFHS rules? Besides, in that memorandum, it sounds as if B1 was actively guarding A1 when he fell. Your post is rebounding action, not offense vs. defense on a drive. Apples and oranges.

B1 is entitled to his/her space on the floor. I have a travel.

Z

[golfdesigner]

Had this one last night Mens Rec, ball is bouncing loose after try attempt, A1 heading for ball looks to get it in stride, B1 makes dive attempt to tip ball, makes nice try but A1 gets slightly clipped, stumbles, doesn't make clean pickup and loses fastbreak advantage..Tweet foul B1..B seemed to think that cause it was a dive for a loose ball that the "contact was incidental" I didn't think so..
B1 not happy, especially b/c he thought it was #5. Thoughts on this one.

[Grant]

Yes I am sorry NCAA rules

[mick]

Originally posted by Grant
Thanks Mic but here is the problem it is the defensive player not in a legal guarding position that caused the travel. If the defender had stuck out his knee and caused it you would call a foul wouldn't you

Yes, I would call the knee.
I would also call the case you noted as BR-73,R4-33, where a defender was attempting to guard.

However, in your original post, the player on the floor, who has some protection from the rules of verticality was merely on the floor making no attempt to guard. (He was just trying to not get stepped upon.) If the rebounder lands on the player on the floor incidentally, then perhaps the contact should be ruled incidental.

Now if the rebounding player grabbed the ball and landed with his foot aiming (judgement) for the player on the floor, and then travels, we won't be calling a travel, but we could well have a foul.

mick

[JeffTheRef]

Originally posted by mick

Yes, I would call the knee.
I would also call the case you noted as BR-73,R4-33, where a defender was attempting to guard.

However, in your original post, the player on the floor, who has some protection from the rules of verticality was merely on the floor making no attempt to guard. (He was just trying to not get stepped upon.) If the rebounder lands on the player on the floor incidentally, then perhaps the contact should be ruled incidental.

Now if the rebounding player grabbed the ball and landed with his foot aiming (judgement) for the player on the floor, and then travels, we won't be calling a travel, but we could well have a foul.

mick

the validity of which I (in my best legal judgment) established as being inplied in the rules. What matters is when did the player on the floor get to the spot. A player in the air has the right to come down on any spot on the floor that was unoccupied at the time s/he took off. (NFHS rules)

[Grant]

Please explain why legal guarding position wouldn't come into this scenario. The definition of legal guarding position is not lying on the floor then if a player trips over someone on the floor then why is it not a foul on the defense.

[footlocker]

Grant, this is a good question.

I thought the same was true for a while and would whistle the player without legal gaurding position. If A1 jumps straight up and obtains the rebound then lands on another player while A1 is trying to come straight down, I have a foul on the player on the ground. I believe that A1 has the right to come down in his own vertical plane.

If A1 is jumping laterally and comes down (this play is more likely) on B1, then I rule a travel. The fact that B1 did not obtain legal gaurding position is not an issue because he is still entitled to his spot on the floor.

The answer is it could be both, depends on the scenario.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Grant
Please explain why legal guarding position wouldn't come into this scenario. The definition of legal guarding position is not lying on the floor then if a player trips over someone on the floor then why is it not a foul on the defense.

A player may be in a "legal position" while not being in a "legal guarding position".

The purpose of "legal guarding position" is to grant the defender the freedom of verticality and some movement at the time of contact without being liable for a foul. That movement may, of course, only be laterally or obliquely away from the opponent.

A stationary player without legal guarding position should never be called for a block...even if that player is laying on the floor.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
".

The purpose of "legal guarding position" is to grant the defender the freedom of verticality and some movement at the time of contact without being liable for a foul. That movement may, of course, only be laterally or obliquely away from the opponent.

A stationary player without legal guarding position should never be called for a block...even if that player is laying on the floor.

footlocker -- the secret to calling this play correctly is the word that Camron uses -- "stationary". If B1 on the floor stays still, and A1 lands on him, or even trips on him, A1 could not possibly have gone straight up and occupied only A1's space. If B1 rolls or slides under A1 after A1 is in the air, whether or not the motion was controllable, I've got a block on B1.