I love this sentence, and it answers the Ag concern. "momentarily" means just for a few seconds here. If you really think the player is planning to fall, you might call a T for unsportsmanlike, otherwise, I've got nothing.

If the player is under the basket, I'll let him lay there and protect themselve knowing that a scramble is coming his/her way. By the time he/she roles over on there back to get up, someone could be on the way down from a rebound and WHAM!!! landing on a gut is not a good sight. Therefore, travel on A1.

>>The Rule Book says it's not a foul <<

Since I don't have a current Fed book, would you please quote the rule word for word.

It's in the old FED rulebooks too. Been around for a long time.

Um, how can you disagree with FED rulings if you don't know what those rulings are? :confused:

>>Can you cite a FED rule that says that this has to be a foul<<

Well, the personal foul rule reads: "A player shall 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 or her own body into other than a normal position;" (Note: I don't have a Fed book; haven't worked interscholastic since around 1996 or so, so this is NCAA, but if I recall correctly, it is the same def. -- correct me if wrong). "Normal position" isn't defined, therefore, its commonly understood meaning must be applied. One can take reference from guarding position, which calls for two feet on the floor. Given basketball isn't a game that usually involves body parts other than the feet to be in contact with the floor, I'd say this is a reasonable interpretation.

I have not seen the casebook in several years, so if you can cite the SPECIFIC (not your interpretation) wording of the AR, I'll evaluate it, but if the Federation is telling officials to call this play traveling, in my view, that is inconsistent with their other rules. NCAA rule is clear: foul.

>>Been around for a long time.<<

If you want me to even consider your point further, you will have to quote the rule/ruling word for word, just as I asked. I don't have a Fed book laying around. I might be able to find one if I looked real hard, but I guarantee you I had this play a number of times, always called a foul, and never heard it should be traveling. I started working in '88, and by '91, I all but had the Fed book memorized. I don't know your definition of "long time," but I do not recall a specific ruling on this play.

If there was one, I missed it, so please quote it.

"the rule/ruling word for word."
 

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
Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

Here endeth the lesson. :)

Had a partner call this a foul this year. :)
Of course, she rolled into the player with the ball, causing her to fall down. H coach wasn't happy. H fans weren't happy. Table personnel weren't happy (at least they had their cell phones to keep them happy though.)

Re:
 

Well for one, I don't think the scenario posted involved an attempt to "steal the ball." If I'm doing a HS game and this is indeed the interpretation, then I follow it, but ONLY when the specified situation exists, i.e. an attempted steal of a stationary opponent who then leaves. If B falls under the basket, not related to a steal, doesn't get up (or isn't in the process of trying to get up) and A comes down on him and loses his control, its a foul.

Read the rule right after this that talks about "guarding position." That's what they are referring to: two feet on the floor. You need to respond specifically to the rule I quoted above before I can buy that the intent of the rules includes having a seat or laying on a point on the floor.

The casebook author(s) is(are) simply wrong on this interpretation, even in the narrow setting they've described.

That's what I thought. Even when faced with the "rule/ruling word for word," you still deny that you're wrong. Not surprising.

It matters not how the player got on the floor. The fact is that he is there.

If you would truly only rule this specific situation as written and not similiar situations, then you must treat every play in the case book that way. And that is certainly not the intent of the case book.

BTW, the same people that write the rule book, write the case book. Most case plays have been in the book for years and years. All you have to do is to compare the latest edition to a 10 or 15 year old version. Some of been added but others remain unchanged.

Good night.

The "word for word" ruling gave me exactly what I asked for: when the ruling is to be applied and when it isn't. Simply because this ruling is applied in this situation, doesn't mean it should be applied in a totally different situation.

You still ignored my other issues raised. Please deal with them before saying that I am the one that's wrong.

I addressed your other concerns, except that I didn't point out for you that both the rule and the case play state, "...every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court..." I figured you could read that for yourself.

The fact that it's addressed in the case play acknowledges that it's in the rule and applies to situations where a player ends up on the floor and did not get there illegally.

Re:
 

Thanks be to God.

The rule is clear that everyone is entitled to a spot on the floor. By making a clarification that it means two feet on the ground, or guarding postion is a stretch and cannot be justified by rule. It' just not there.

Unless a player falls or causes while falling a trip, it's just not a foul. Being on the floor sometimes is normal part of the game. Most of the time its the sign of great hustle.

I would not want to be in your shoes to explain that a kid who was on the floor who made a great hustle play picks up a foul because he was still on the floor and could not stand up and a player trips on him. How would this be any different than if a dribbler tries to go through the tall timber and trips on another players feet and gets tangled up. You cannot penalize hustle or good defense just because you may think the FED is wrong. The case book is explicit and if you think that play only applies to steal??? the case is there to demonstrate that a player on the floor cannot cause a foul.

Well, just to be clear, let's re-word that. Let's say being on the floor doesn't automatically make any contact a foul. A player on the floor, could still cause a foul, if they put their mind to it. But it isn't the being there that is an inherent foul.