A1 has ball in the backcourt after rebounding the ball. B1 slips on the floor behind A1 and is lying on the floor. A1 backs up a little and sits on B1 lightly with the ball in her hands. The next thing she does is makes a getting up motion and passes the ball. I called traveling yes . No?

I'm not sure I am visualizing correctly but should you not call a foul on B1. If A1 fell (sits?) because of B1 who does not have a legal guarding position then that is a foul on B1.

In most rules (except FIBA), it is traveling to fall to the floor while holding the ball. Why not call that travel rather than trying to stand up?

She Accidentally falls, stepping backwards.

Oh? Please read NFHS case book play 10.6.1SitE, Jay. You may want to revise your statement above after doing so.

Every player is entitled to a position on the court, and that position does not necessarily have to include a legal guarding position.

As JR pointed out, in FED, this is not a foul. In NCAA, different story.

Because apparently, she didn't fall to the floor. She never made it to the floor. So the question is whether it's traveling to fall onto another player. I would vote no, just as a guess.

If you let that one go, I would say that I would also not call traveling for the attempt to stand before passing; and for the same reason -- she wasn't on the floor.

My bad. I use NCAA rules here in Canada but not Fed. I assumed that NCAA and Fed would be the same.

If A1 is now sitting on top of B1, who is on the floor, why would it not be a holding foul on A1, who has B1 pinned to the floor?

You're kidding right?

Z

Ahh, yes. That will stir the pot!

In a loose ball situation, that sounds much like the criteria I use to distinguish incidental contact from a foul. If a player sits on, lays on, climbs over, etc, another player, TWEET!! Foul. I guess that goes for any situation, but usually this happens during those wild scrambles when the ball seems more like a greased pig than a leather sphere.

They're getting closer. FED is going to the team control foul this year, and also going to give the ball back to the team in control after double fouls.

To a certain extent. I know the original play says A1 is "lightly" sitting on B1. I find that hard to imagine. It is also hard to imagine A1 not shuffling feet a little while moving to the sitting position on top of B1.

However, if B1 attempts to get up and cannot because A1 is sitting on her, I think I have a holding foul (if I have not already called a traveling violation).

If B1 was lying on the floor, was he making normal offensive or defensive movements? No. So by sitting on B1, is A1 restricting B1's normal offensive or defensive movements? No.

Would you like to leave the gym in one piece? If so, I'm guessing you wouldn't really call a foul on A1. :)

Agreed.

I am thinking if anyone is sitting on me, my movement is a little restricted. Don't know what it is like where you are at Chuck.

Just because a player is on the floor does not give another player the right to sit on them. B1 is entitled to a spot on the floor and the verticle area above that spot. A1 still has the responsibility to manuver around B1.

But you just agreed that he wasn't making any movements. If there are no movements, how can those movements be restricted?

Mayber there is no movement because she can't.

Is getting up an offensive or defensive movement? or neither? Can B1 reach up and make a defensive movement if the arm is pinned beneath A1? If B1 is trying to make any movement under A1, then she is being put at a disadvantage by having A1 sit on her.

I think there are many refs that would not consider the movement of A1 a foul, because it was "accidental". Yet, if B1 is laying on the floor and A1 says to herself "I think I will go over there and sit on B1" I think most of us would 1> wonder why B1 is laying on the floor and 2> call the foul on A1 for sitting on B1. My point is the result of the unintentional sitting and intentional sitting are the same - B1 underneath A1 with B1's movement restricted. If B1 was entitled to that spot to begin with, A1 can't sit on her, even if it was by accident.

No one mentioned the possibility of a foul on A1 until I brought it up. Would I call it? Only if B1 is making attempts to get up and is restricted by A1 sitting on her. Other than that I would treat the movement by A1 as "moving next to" another player and coming in contact with that player. Only when B1 tries to move and can't does the contact become a holding foul. If B1 can readily get free or if it is my judgement she can get free, then the contact is incidental in nature.