B1 falls to the floor and is laying around the basket area.
A1 jumps and secures a rebound but lands on B1. Landing on B1 causes A1 to fall down with the ball which is a travel.
Should a foul be called on this play on B1 instead of the travel?

Why would there be a foul on B1 unless B1 pulled A1 to the floor somehow? B1 is entitled to a spot on the floor. A1 fell down. Unfortunate for A1. Travel.

Traveling.

Perhaps Zanzibar felt that B1 did not have legal guarding position in this situation. But yet, it is a travel.

FED: Travel on A1.

NCAA: Foul on B1. (Some AR or interp -- I don't have my books today)

<img src="http://www.eaforums.com/forums//images/smilies/referee.gif"> Traveling

Interesting that the NCAA has this as a foul on B1.
I just did some researching in the NF case book and found an applicable case play 10.6.1E This states that a player is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after fallen down.

You see this more than a few times in the frosh/JV level. It looks terrible... But I have a traveling call too.

I just did some researching in the NF case book and found an applicable case play 10.6.1E This states that a player is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after fallen down. [/B][/QUOTE]

IF, B1 is entitled to his postion on the floor AND A1 is trying to use the same position on the floor, arriving AFTER B1 is already there: what prevents it from being a foul on A1?

IF, B1 is entitled to his postion on the floor AND A1 is trying to use the same position on the floor, arriving AFTER B1 is already there: what prevents it from being a foul on A1? [/B][/QUOTE]Common sense. :D

You probably could make up some kinda rules justification for calling a foul. I really don't think that's the purpose and intent of the rule on this one. Nobody really got placed at a disadvantage with the contact, did they? Maybe the player with the ball, but he was responsible for the contact.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 20th, 2005 at 04:28 PM]

I disagree with most of the Fed rulings here. This has to be a foul UNLESS the player on the floor either 1) just got there or 2) is making a quick attempt to get back up. I don't believe the intent of the rules is to allow any player to legally occupy a position on the floor by laying or sitting, but by being in a guarding position (i.e. feet on the floor).

Keep in mind the idea that the player has from the floor to the ceiling in his "plane" as far as entitlement if he is legally occupying a space. Giving him the same rights when he is laying or sitting on the floor gives him too wide an area in my view, and he is exploiting the rules to gain an unfair advantage.

I would call this a foul unless a supervisor or AR specifically said not to.

The Rule Book says it's not a foul (Case Book play previously mentioned). Whether you agree with it or not.

Can you cite a FED rule that says that this <b>has</b> to be a foul, and case book play 10.6.1SitE is invalid and <b>has</b> to be ignored?

I would certainly hope that your supervisor or AR isn't telling you to ignore rules.

I think in 99.5% of these types of situations in high school, the player just got there and it was not planned. Do you really think kids are going to voluntarily lie down under the basket and wait around on the hopes of getting, what, tripped over? Kicked? what?

How do you define, in your own personal rule book, what "just got there" means?

And in my experience, when a guy ends up on the floor in the key, he is never desperately trying to get up - he is desperately trying not to have any vital organs get trampled on. He has no advantage whatsoever. Now if he reaches up and grabs someone or uses his legs to try and kick or trip someone, then we have a problem with him.