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.

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.

Lah me. Who really gives a damn if you're gonna consider our points, you condescending little dexter.

Wow! 1988 eh? I bow to your amazing amount of experience. I've only been doing games since...oh...1959. And,fyi, that rule has been in place since.....oh....at least 1959.

Experience doesn't mean squat. A knowledge of the rules does mean something. You obviously don't have that knowledge. Equally obvious, you don't want to admit that you are clueless. BktBallRef takes the time to cite the complete case play for you and explain the concept, and all you can say is "Naw, that ain't right". Well, I got a novel little concept for ya. <b>You</b> cite a NFHS rule that negates that case book play and backs up your little flight of fantasy.

No matter what, call it any damn way that you freaking want to. You will anyway, because you obviously don't believe any of us. Why are you wasting your time here anyway if nobody here knows anything? Or are you trying to educate the masses from your vast knowledge of the FED rule book?

Lah, me. Big hat, no cattle!

Note:edited to replace a word that I used with "dexter" instead.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 21st, 2005 at 07:19 AM]

Re: Re:
 

The casebook author(s) is(are) simply wrong on this interpretation, even in the narrow setting they've described. [/B][/QUOTE]That may just be the most amazing quote that I have ever seen on this forum, and I''ve seen some dandies. Right up there as one of the funniest too.

Aggie is right and the rule book is wrong. Yup, you heard it right,folks. All of those people that sit around the table as members of the NFHS rules committee are <b>wrong</b>!. They're wrong because Aggie says they're wrong!

Lah me. :D

Re: Re: Re:
 

And that's even without having done any high school ball for the last five years. I think we should canonize him!

And that's even without having done any high school ball for the last five years. I think we should canonize him! [/B][/QUOTE]Well, that might be going just a tetch too far. Besides, I don't even own a cannon or know where to get one.

I thought you were a Quaker?

Re: Re: Re:
 

That may just be the most amazing quote that I have ever seen on this forum, and I''ve seen some dandies. Right up there as one of the funniest too.

Aggie is right and the rule book is wrong. Yup, you heard it right,folks. All of those people that sit around the table as members of the NFHS rules committee are <b>wrong</b>!. They're wrong because Aggie says they're wrong!

Lah me. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

I thought MTD had taken a new screen name. ;)

CaseBook:

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)

RuleBook

Hot damn! That's funny right there, I don't care who you are! :D


Yep, we know Ref Daddy. I already cited it for him and he still doesn't believe us. "The casebook author(s) is(are) simply wrong on this interpretation, even in the narrow setting they've described. " :(

Distinction
 

One note on this case that I haven't seen touched on yet is that in the case the dribbler loses control of the ball which is why there wasn't a traveling violation. I believe that it is save to assume - since there isn't a foul call - that, had the player been holding the ball as he/she fell to the floor, it would have been ruled a travel.

>>Aggie is right and the rule book is wrong. Yup, you heard it right,folks. All of those people that sit around the table as members of the NFHS rules committee are wrong!. They're wrong because Aggie says they're wrong!<<

Hmm. No argument, just a weak attempt at an ad-hominem. The interpretation is wrong because 1)it is inconsistent with other rules and 2) it ignores that basketball is not a game where laying on the floor is to be given precedence over being on one's own two feet. If, in the same play, the ball carrier trips over the feet of a standing player, it is likely a foul, depending on relative time and distance requirements and where his feet are. If you've actually worked games, can you tell me you've NEVER called such a play a blocking foul on the defender?

Argue that instead of making immature and idiotic comments. And don't assume that the rule writers are perfect. There could be political reasons for that interpretation.

>>I already cited it for him and he still doesn't believe us.<<

It isn't an issue of my belief (please stick to the argument at hand), but you cited the interp, and then argued it applied to a situation where it clearly did not.

I fail to understand why you think this interpretation applies to situations that, based on the express wording, make it inapplicable. Your inability to explain that is the problem, not my opinion on the soundness of the interp, which, really isn't relevent to the issue of when the interp applies and when it doesn't.

>>A knowledge of the rules does mean something. You obviously don't have that knowledge.<<

Wanna put $1000 bet on a rules test?

>>BktBallRef takes the time to cite the complete case play for you and explain the concept, and all you can say is "Naw, that ain't right". Well, I got a novel little concept for ya. You cite a NFHS rule that negates that case book play and backs up your little flight of fantasy.<<

If you would actually read what I wrote, and try to understand it, you would find that I already did just that.

Do I need to show you my posts, or are you actually capable of reading the entire post?

I didn't say, "naw, that ain't right." Don't make things up. What I said was that 1) I strongly disagree with the interpretation -- i.e., I don't think the casebook authors are correct. If its approved, its approved and if I were working HS games and my state association said to use all ARs, I'd use it; and 2) (the real issue) that the interp doesn't apply to the original post and the original question.

Those might just be the all-time stoopidest things that I've ever read on this forum, notwithstanding your previous post. It's a toss-up as which one of them is dumber. Again, the NFHS written rules are <b>wrong</b> because Aggie says so. Know what? It's just a waste of time trying to argue anything with you, and I'm not even gonna try. You obviously know everything already.

Btw, yup, I've worked a few games in the last 46 years. A few thousand! Do you wanna know what that buys me on this forum in the way of credibility? Nada! Zippo! Nuthin'! Zero! Nil!.....Get the point?

Immature and idiotic? You wrote the book on that, dexterhead!

Lah me!

I'm not going to get into a name calling war with you even though that's clearly what you want.

>>It's just a waste of time trying to argue anything with you, and I'm not even gonna try.<<

Its only a waste of time if you think you'll lose the argument.

If my writings are truly as stupid as you suggest, you should have no problem refuting them. Instead, you ignore them and pretend that I claim to be some sort of know it all, and that excuses you from attempted refutation.

Where exactly did I claim to know everything? Are you suggesting that since I make an argument, stick to it, refute things that I don't agree with, etc., that I am claiming to "know it all?" Why couldn't I say the same thing about you? You, after all, have refused to answer my specific questions or respond specifically to what I wrote relevent to the issue at hand. Add to that all the "stupidest" references as if you think you are bullying me or convincing others. None of that bothers me, BTW, but I do think it makes you look a bit silly or childish.

Why don't you calm down and come back to the table and discuss the issues. Here are my points, as clearly and as quickly as I can make them. If you disagree, please say so and argue, without theatrics and name calling, why you disagree, or why you think I'm wrong. There's nothing wrong with a situation where one of us doesn't convince the other.

1. IF I called Fed, which I don't, I would follow the interp, assuming the state assn. said follow it. However, my OPINION is that the interp is incorrect. That OPINION is based on factors that I've already discussed and would simply be cutting and pasting -- which I will do if you truly can not find the relevent post. For now, at least look for it. If you are unclear which post, let me know.

2. Totally separate from my OPINION on the interp, I asked for the stated AR because I wanted to see what SPECIFIC instance the interp dealt with. When I read the interp, it was clear, at least to me, that the interp didn't reference the issue that the original post did. I'm not going to lie to you: since I don't agree with the interp, I'd probably look for ways to get around it. HOWEVER, notwithstanding that, I don't believe officials should call things based on an interp that isn't necessarily applicable to another situation, given the fact that there are other rules that are applicable.

If an interp made a reference to a play where A was "holding" a ball, and B was "attempting to steal" the ball, is it truly unreasonable to say that the AR doesn't NECESSARILY apply to a situation where A falls down under the basket and B is coming down on a rebound and neither a "holding" nor a "steal" happened?

If you can get three people (other than you) to say I am being unreasonable in making the argument in the above paragraph, I PROMISE I won't say another word on the issue.

#1
 

You're being unreasonable.

Please don't take this personal, counselor, but would you argue case law with an orangutang? Why would you possibly think that I would waste any more of my time debating NFHS rules with some bozo that doesn't even own a rulebook? Does that make sense to you?

Btw, I'm calm. I was calm when I made my previous posts too. I'm always the epitome of calm. Ask anyone.

Gee, how could anyone take that personally?

Quote:

Why would you possibly think that I would waste any more of my time debating NFHS rules with some bozo that doesn't even own a rulebook?

Bozo? Boy, that's great. You're a real testament to officials everywhere.

And I own probably 15 NCAA rule books and somewhere around 9 Fed books. But I don't know offhand where all those but about 6 NCAA books are.

Quote:

Does that make sense to you?

No, it doesn't.

Quote:

Btw, I'm calm. I was calm when I made my previous posts too. I'm always the epitome of calm. Ask anyone.

I can only go by your posts to me. You've referred to my posts as "stupid," called me a bozo and either referred to me or analogized me as an ape on this post alone, you continually refuse to answer my questions or engage me in argument over the issue at hand when I've done my darndest to try and keep this on topic, and you expect me to believe that you are the "epitome" of anything?

Wait a minute: Coach Gene Iba, is that you? Been a long time!

Yep, he's the epitome of calm. :D

#2
 

You are absolutely being unreasonable.

#3
 

Unreasonable!!

Ball's in your court, Aggie.

Hmmmmmmm.

Maybe I should go back and edit out the part that says "ask anyone". :D