As Juulie cited, it is legal for a player to be prone on the floor without being at risk for being call for a foul (HS only).

Verticality, among other things, is a priviledge available only to someone in a legal guarding position. The player on the floor, while in a legal position, is not in a legal guarding position. While they may legally occupy the spot on the floor, they may not (even if it were physically possible) jump, raise their hands, nor may the move to stay in the path of the opponent.

Working night shifts so getting in on this one late...

when I first read Dan's sitch, I said to myself...intentional foul. After reading all the responses...I still say intentional foul. Now, if the player "stomped" on the opponent laying on the ground...a flagrant personal foul could be in order.

So, assuming that my opponent is standing, if I determine that the most direct path to the basket is right through my opponent, it's okay if I just plow him over? My intent is to score a basket, after all, and he's impeding my progress. The defender is supposed to be in my way. Just because he happens to be lying on the floor doesn't make it okay for me to create contact with him to get to the basket. A2's options in this case are the same as they are if the opponent were standing. He can pull up and shoot the jumper, he can try to go around him, he can pass off to a teammate.

Whether B1 has LGP or not, and regardless of the AR, A2 deliberately created the contact. In that respect, it is very much like a shooter jumping into the defender, trying to draw the foul. B1 is therefore absolved of any responsibility and I'm either going to have either a foul on A2, or nothing. Given the non-basketball nature of this play, and the potential for retaliatory ugliness, I don't see how I could possibly pass on it. I'd probably call it intentional just to keep the peace.

Juulie,

Nice catch! I knew I'd seen it, but haven't had time to go looking........

The case book doesn't consider every possible interpretation of each rule every year, but highlights those that are either commonly misunderstood or may need clarification, such as with a new or modified rule. If this were even possible, the thing would be 3 feet thick! The way I understand it, interpretations in previous case books still apply unless/until they are superceeded by a subsequent rule/case book change, so the 04/05 case play you cited does still apply.

In the situation in question I think most would agree that you'd really have to be there, but as described, under NFHS rules it is at the very least an intentional foul on A2, and most probably flagrant IMHO.

I ran a quick search and sure enough it has been repeated many times but I cannot find any with a rules citation. Can you give me your rules basis for this position?

Rule 4-19 defines <b>all</b> of the different types of fouls. Rule 4-19-3 defines an intentional foul. Rule 4-19-4 defines a flagrant foul. There are separate articles set out for each of them. You will not find an "intentional flagrant" foul defined anywhere in R4-19. It simply does not exist.

If you still don't believe us, a good idea might then be to take that question to your local rules interpreter.