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!

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).

Well since you appear to like that agressive play, I hear the WWE is hiring refs.:D

I can't count to three.

Not a major requirement. Can you get easily distracted and fall nicely when hit by a chair?