A friend of mine posed this situation to me. I know what I'd call, but I couldn't articulate the reasons very well. So let me turn it over to you and see if you can do a better job than me.

A1 is on the floor, on her back, has the ball. B1 dives on top of A1 and ties up the ball. You judge that B1 was just trying to get the ball. A1 is not displaced when B1 lands on her, but B1 lands solidly on top of her.

Foul on B1 or held ball?

I couldn't imagine there would be no contact on this play.

I'd say Foul on B1.

[Edited by thumpferee on Feb 21st, 2005 at 04:02 PM]

Assuming the dive was on top of the ball (which was on top of A1), I'd have a held ball.

If the dive was clearly just on top of A1, and then B1 reached for the ball, I'd have the foul.

Most of the time it's the former -- it's not a foul because the contact didn't prevent normal offensive or defensive maneuvers -- the only things A1 could legally do was sit up, start a dribble, shoot or pass the ball, or call a TO. The contact didn't prevent any of those (the held ball prevented those).

A1 is entitled to a spot on the floor, even if she's on her back. B1 cannot occupy the same space. I'd call foul on B1 if it was a "dive."

I'm with Bob -- while the player is entitled to the spot on the floor we still have to look at advantage/disadvantage. If the dive was at the ball and caused a held ball, any subsequent contact is pretty much irrelevant, unless "intentional or flagrant."

Must be a pretty small girl if she can dive and land only on the ball.

I'm visualizing this as a foul.

There has got to be a better way to get a jump ball call than DIVING on a girl lying flat on her back.

Foul.

In a high school game (especially a girls game), if you don't call a foul on the dive (at least the way I'm picturing this in my mind), you're just asking for trouble.

Z

Foul all the way!

It's a HUGE disadvantage to not be able to sit up because there's an opponent on top of one. It's not the contact subsequent to the held ball that bothers me, it's the contact preliminary to it. I've got a foul.

Contact does not equal foul. If she dives in with her hands and wraps up the ball, I don't care if there's some incidental contact. I'm not penalizing agressive play just ecause there may have been a bump on the floor.

I think both of us said it depends on what happened first. If she goes in with the hands first and has ball and then contacts the player, I'm likely to call it a held ball. If she dives on top and then reaches for the ball, it's already (likely) been called a foul.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Quote:

I think both of us said it depends on what happened first. If she goes in with the hands first and has ball and then contacts the player, I'm likely to call it a held ball. If she dives on top and then reaches for the ball, it's already (likely) been called a foul.

So if a driving player creams a defender who has LGP and leads with the ball, are you going to no-call that too?

Z

Change it by taking out the player on the floor and have her standing.

You not going to call a foul with head to toe contact in an attempt to tie up the ball?

The ONLY reason A1 is not displaced is because of the floor. If the contact by the diving defender would displace A1 if she were standing, than it is a foul while she's on the floor.

Yea, I can live with that. What you originally said didn't sound the same. I expect you and I are seeing the original play at different levels of skill!