The floor is what makes this play completely different.

Help me understand; is there a bump or did she dive on the player? I'll pass on the bump but diving on a player is pretty much a foul.

Only for one reason and that is displacement.

Diving into another player will cause displacement most of the time. You can't displace a player on the floor without driving them THROUGH the floor.

In this situation the ONLY time I'm calling a held ball is if B is standing and the tie up PULLS her on top of A. A dive on top of another player that has the ball is a foul, it's not incidental contact.

You're giving special treatment to the player on the floor, then. If I dive in and tie the ball up, it's held before any contact is made. Why bail the player out on the floor who is in the worst possible position to make anything happen?

Heck, why not kick em while their down there too. Just because they're on the floor doesn't make it right to have a hog-pile.

Oh come on, this is an exaggeration. I never said I'd tolerate a player diving on a player and then tying the ball up. Or kicking. Or having a hogpile. But I'm not going to shy away from rewarding aggressive play just becasue there might be some contact.

You're giving special treatment to the player on the floor, then. If I dive in and tie the ball up, it's held before any contact is made. Why bail the player out on the floor who is in the worst possible position to make anything happen? [/B][/QUOTE]

Heck, why not kick em while their down there too. Just because they're on the floor doesn't make it right to have a hog-pile. [/B][/QUOTE]

Oh come on, this is an exaggeration. I never said I'd tolerate a player diving on a player and then tying the ball up. Or kicking. Or having a hogpile. But I'm not going to shy away from rewarding aggressive play just becasue there might be some contact. [/B][/QUOTE]

I quit, this is like getting bitten to death by a duck!

No, I'm applying the rules correctly.

By rule every player is entitled to their spot on the floor, EVEN if they are on the floor.

4-27-2 Contact that occurs unintentionally in an effort to reach a loose ball, or contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal off. and def. movements.

4-27-3 Similarly, contact which does not hinder normal off. or def. movements should be considered incidental.

Does diving on a player with the ball meet article 2? The ball was not loose and we did not have equally favorable positions.

Article 3? Kind of hard to sit up, dribble, shoot, or pass with the defender jumping on top of you.

So again, unless the ball is tied up BEFORE the dive, this does not fit incidental contact by rule.;)

Why did we not have equally favorable positions? I hardly think A1's position was favorable for almost anything.

Quote:

Article 3? Kind of hard to sit up, dribble, shoot, or pass with the defender jumping on top of you.

Agreed -- but it's the held ball that makes those things "kind of hard" -- at least in the version of the play that Rich and I are calling a held ball.

A player diving does not have a position.

I read that as two players with an equal chance of playing.

In this case you have a player on the floor with limited options and a player, without a position on the floor, taking away what options are there.

Is A1 entitled to their spot on the floor?

Is the ball loose?

Did the dive hinder A1?

Would that level of contact normally displace a standing player?

Do we want to encourage OVERLY-aggressive play, that could seriously injure a player?

In my game if the tie up did not cause the contact, in this case the diving on, I'm calling a foul. I can't seperate the act from the result and a split second of holding the ball, before B1 lands on A1, does not meet the requirements for a held ball. 4-25-1 Opponents have their hands so FIRMLY on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness.;)

I agree with Rich, even if there's a *lot* of incidental contact.

I agree with Blind Zebra.

How can diving on a player that is holding the ball, be she standing, walking, jumping, flat on her back be judged incidental contact? The amount of time the diver's hand is on the ball (unless the prone player is shooting) before contact occurs cannot be long enough to result in a held ball.

Not only am I not trying to judge incidental contact, but depending on the quality of the dive (8.0, 8.5, etc) I may be looking at excessive contact.

Mulk

Excessive contact? C'mon, now. Are you one of the people I hear at girls'
games screaming "Someone's gonna get hurt" the first time players are diving on the floor after the ball? :D

Comedy aside, there is a BIG difference between players diving on the floor and diving on each other.;)

Why put comedy aside? I'm enjoying this (or I wouldn't still be posting).