Please hold back the "doggy style" references!

Yes, it happened....not in my game!

Rec Ball so NF if you please...

A2 intentionally goes to all fours in the lane out ahead of a fast break in front A1 who has the ball and B1 guarding him. I suppose not seeing A2, B1 falls over him and the offensive player goes around for an easy layup.

I am sure we would all call this illegal / borderline unsportsman.

NF sez:....RULE 10 SECTION 6 CONTACT
ART. 1 . . . A player shall not: hold, push, charge, trip; nor impede the progress of an opponent by extending an arm, shoulder, hip or knee, or by bending the body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

Anyone see a specific reference that could be a better rule that covers this?

Larks


[Edited by Larks on Feb 23rd, 2004 at 02:56 PM]

Yes. NF 11.1 - "No player or animal on the court shall be on all fours except in donkey basketball games."

Followup....whats your penalty here?

Book sez: PENALTY: Personal Foul (Section 6) Offender is charged with one foul, and if it is his/her fifth foul (personal and technical) or if it is flagrant, he/she is disqualified.

I know you gotta see it. This smells kinda flagrant.

Ok, I've now been told that the official passed on the call (DOH) despite the fact that he observed them "practicing" this play in pregame warmups.

Their question to me was "should we have stuck the coach" as well. I dont see where a personal foul of this nature also brings a penalty on the coach.

Thoughts?

I can't see sticking the coach. I see a few options. (1) PF for an illegal screen. Player only has that part of the vertical plane that is directly above his/her feet. (2)Intentional foul. (3) Unsportsmanlike T (4) 3 seconds; I might be inclined to call this if there was no contact (ie, B1 sees the "screen" and stops or goes around or leaps over it). If coach complains, I'd inform him he's lucky I didn't T his player.

I'd call it "intentional tripping."

From the NFHS 2003-04 Rules R4-S39:
A1: A screen is legal action by a player who, without causing contact, delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.
A2: To establish a legal screening position:
a. The screener may face any direction.
b. Time and distance are relevant.
c. The screener must be stationary, except when both are moving in the same path and same direction.
A3: When screening a stationary opponent from the front or side, the screener may be anywhere short of contact.
A4: When screening a stationary opponent from behind, the screener must allow the opponent one normal step backward without contact.
A5: When screening moving opponent, the screener must allow the opponent time and distance to avoid contact. The distance not need to be more than two strides.
A6: When screening an opponent who is moving in the same path and direction as the screener is moving, the opponent is responsible for contact if the screener slows up or stops.


A player is entitled to any spot on the floor, provided he gets to that spot according to the rules. As long as A2 did not violate any provision of R4-S39, then I believe that he is not guilty of a blocking foul.

How about R4 Sec 23 Art 2:
... to obtain legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have BOTH FEET touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard's torso MUST BE FACING the opponent.

MTD, your wrong. This play is wrong. The coach and the players involved are wrong. This is not basketball and for MTD to allow the play and justify by the rules is flat wrong. (Sorry I'm coming on so harsh here.)

Your dangerously close to being labeled a "book referee." (unless you have been labeled this already) This play is unfair, unethical and dishonorable conduct. However, I know that is a definition of a non-contact unsporting foul. So, I could call the kids for simlpy trying it- after all the ref saw them practicing the play. (BTW-preventative maintenance- got to tell them if they try this it will be penalized, then no situation)

If you only reflect the book and no common sense then you have a problem as an official. If the screen was a good idea then why not stay standing? Reason, there was intent to harm and embarrass. This equates to taunting. "T".

You have to call this.

While I do agree with you in principal on this play, a player that is screening is NOT guarding. They are two different actions. Guarding, as defined, is done only by defensive players. A screener is NEVER required to be facing the opponent.

I do believe the <em>intent</em> of screening is that the screener be standing. We call it a block anytime an opponent runs into a screener's extended hip, arm, leg. So, a player on all fours is not in a valid screening position. When the opponenent hits them, I've got a block.

Gee, do you think? :eek:

Z

One-Whistle:

The play in this thread is about screening not guarding. Therefore, R4-S23-A2 does not apply, in fact all of R4-S23 does not apply to this play.

MTD, Sr.

Which is the same as rec ball :D

Sure looks like an illegal screen to me!

http://www.gifs.net/animate/doghappy.gif

Not only is this behavior "unbasketball-like" in it's nature, but from the description sounds like it is possible to cut a players legs out from under him and injure him. I would be inclinded to issue an immediate T for this behavior based on the potential danger. Call it unsportsmanlike behavior. Would I be over-reacting?

Also, if it were observed in practice, a word to the coach would have been appropriate, IMO.

I agree that this could have been prevented prior to the game. I quiet yet firm warning that such a play would result in a Technical foul would likely have stopped him from trying it. Any complaint from the coach if it still happened could have been followed with another T.

Mark, my understanding is that players only have the right to the spot on the floor above their feet (verticality). If a screener leans into a defender, it doesn't matter if he was there first, the foul is still on the screener. I see getting down on all fours as (at least) an extreme example of a screener leaning into the defender. At the very least, I've got an illegal screen.

IMO
 

I would have to say that this would be a Technical. I have had or heard of too many players "flopping" trying to draw false fouls when they just end up being on the floor as a safety hazard to the rest of the players. Safety is tantamount!!

You might not be over-reacting, but you might be making the wrong call. Contact during a live ball is a personal foul of some type. Iow, you can call this foul a common foul, an intentional personal foul or a flagrant personal foul. The only way that you can call it a T is to call the T before any contact is made, and then call it an unsporting act. Then you can also call it a regular T, or a flagrant T.

Getting down on all fours is not a legal guarding position. This one is just too obvious -- it's a foul on the guy on hands and knees on the floor.

The only argument here should be whether it is a common, intentional, or flagrant foul. I would lean towards the intentional myself because it was premeditated. Depending on the severity of contact it could be a flagrant.

Definitely NOT a technical foul since the ball is live and this is not "unsporting" -- it is a contact foul.

Mark -- I think this might be the first time that I have ever disagreed with you :)

Call the obvious -- it makes all of our lives easier! :)

Not to sound like I'm supporting the "on all 4's play", but what if this player wasn't on all fours but laying on the floor in pain due to an injury and a defensive player trips over him (offensive player uses injured player for a screen - injured player is on offense), and yes I know the ref should have already stopped play but that kills my example. We still have a player in an atypical screening position, but now not intentionally. Do we still have a call?

FED: Legal play

NCAA: Blocking foul on the player on the floor

Casebook 10.6.1 Sit E might address this issue. I would either call and intentional or an unsporting foul. Pulling a 3-Stooges routine is not basketball.

I agree. Not basketball. Hurt player, common sense. Stop play, or no call. The hurt player example is doubly bad because 1. you did not stop play for him. 2. another player is now at risk of injury because of injured player #1.

LGP doesn't apply since LGP is only defined for guarding an offensive opponent. This fall under the rules of screening....still I have the same conclusion.

Brad:

The definition of guarding does not apply to this play. The screening definition of this play is the rule that we as officials have to apply first. Yes, I agree, that if there is a contact foul called in this situation, it is a personal foul. In reference to the NFHS and NCAA Casebook Plays and Approved Rulings, I do not have my books in front of me to make a comment. As far as the original play is concerned, I really am going to have to say that it is probably one that you have to be there to see it to really make an accurate assessment of the situation.

MTD, Sr.

Rule 10-6-1
 

"A player shall not: hold, push, charge, trip; nor impede the progress of an opponent by extending an arm, shoulder, hip or knee, or by bending the body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics."

It seems to me the player on all fours is bending his body into "other than a normal position." If this impedes the progress of the defender, then I've got a personal foul. Any contact whatsoever is going to get called by me on this. If there's no contact, I'll wait til he starts barking to call the T. :)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brad
[ .

Definitely NOT a technical foul since the ball is live and this is not "unsporting" -- it is a contact foul.

I do think that it could be an unsporting foul, which is "a noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical or dishonorable conduct". While that action led to contact (which could also be a foul) Down on all fours to trip an unsespecting opponent certainly can be judged under the unsporting definition, which is not limited to just those actions in 10-3-7. Whatever your decision, contact foul or technical, something needs to be called. the poster who indicated that in NF this is a legal play is wrong.

When they get down on all fours, could we whistle the play stopped and have everyone help look for the "lost contact". That's the only reason you would be on the floor like that, isn't it?

Just a thought,
Stan

lol, i like this. and if they do it more than once, you blow the whistle and initiate a lost contact search every time. eventually it'll annoy them and they'll knock it off! :D

Mark,

If a player falls down and is laying on the floor and another player trips over him, is that not a foul? I don't think that you can lay on the floor simply because you "got there first" :)

- Brad

No, it's not. There's a casebook play to that very point.

From 2002-03 book:

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)

Glad I didn't bet on that one :)

Still, I think that the case is different than the original play described -- getting down on all fours. That is just simply not part of basketball.

Something about the spirit of the rules comes to mind here...

I agree with Brad. Also, I think it is interesting to note that the casebook play uses the word "momentarily" on the ground. Meaning, due to a fall s/he is "momentarily' on the ground and will immediately get back up. Getting down on all fours to screen someone has got to be something more than momentary ;)

The key for me is that the rules for screening say a player cannot bend his/her body in an "other than normal" manner. Unless someone can convince me that getting on all fours is part of "normal," this is a foul if it in any way impedes the movement of the opponent; with or without the ball.

Agree, just pointing out that being on the floor doesn't mean automatic foul.

I would, however, call a block for setting a screen by, as Snaqwells has said, <b>bend[ing] his/her body in an "other than normal" manner</b>.

It's certainly a foul, but for different reasons.

I think that the difference is an inadvertant act vs. a deliberate act.

I'd even be inclined to call a T on as an unsportsmanlike act depending on the previous tone of the game.

Some might suggest that it could only be a personal foul but I argue that the mere act of getting on the floor with the intention of tripping someone in this manner is really the actual infraction, not the contact itself. The contact just cements the call.

First, I would like to thank Cameron, for looking up the appropriate Casebook Play for me, because I was too lazy to look it up for myself.

Second, since I have been lazy about this play, so let me play Devil's Advocate for a while.

Larks, quoted the first sentence of NFHS R10-S6-A1, which states: "A player shall not: hold, push, charge, trip; nor impede the progress of an opponent by extending an arm, shoulder, hip or knee, or by bending the body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics."

I think that R4-S39 and R10-S6-A1 are the relevant rules that apply to this thread's play.


It is my opinion that A2, as long as met the requirements of R4-S39-A5, then his position on the floor is legal. While Camron's Casebook Play refers to a player who has fallen to the floor, while A2 in this thread's play intentionally went to the floor on all fours, I still believe his position on the floor is legal.

The next question is whether or not A2 is bending his body into other than a normal position. If A2 is standing on his feet, then a normal position would be standing in an upright position and to bend his body to the left or right or front or back from his vertical standing position and causes contact is a violation of R10-S6-A1. If A2 is on all fours, then he is in a normal position for a person being on all fours. From that position if A2 leans out of his vertical in any direction and causes contact then he has violated R10-S6-A1.

If A2 does not violate R4-S39-A5 and does not bend his body, then the part of R10-S6-A1 that I would apply to this play is that a player should not use rough tactics, and in my opinion this is a rough tactic. I would go as far as to say that A2's conduct could be considered a flagrant foul.

MTD, Sr.

MTD,
There seem to be several different calls that could be reasonably justified. To me, I would *at least* call an illegal screen, as the body is bent out of normal basketball position. I think that's a valid interp here. The point is, it doesn't take any stretching to call this some sort of foul.

Adam

No Way JR, thats hilarious!!!

So which is it MTD? Are you saying its legal but flagrant?

After I logged off last night, I realized that I really had not given an answer to how I would handle this play.

I have two ways to handle the play.

1) If I see A2 go down on all fours and I can stop play before B1 makes contact with A2, I will treat A2 as an injured player. I will ask him if he is okay and wants to stay in the game or does he want his coach take him out of the game? Coach A will not like me stopping a fastbreak for his team, but so be it, because it is going to beat how I handle the play if B1 makes contact with A2. Which leads me to:

2) If I cannot stop play before B1 makes A2, then I have a flagrant personal foul on A2, because I would have to believe that the ensuing collision between B1 and A2 would be nasty and B1 could get seriously injured by A2's stupidity.

MTD, Sr.