Layup

[bradfordwilkins]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

It may be impeding, but it's not illegal -- in HS. College is different. In HS, anyone is allowed her spot, if she gets there legally, even if that place is temporarily stretched out on the floor. In HS, in this play, whether A1 looks or not, if you call a foul, it can't be a block.

Not arguing you, just curious what rule clarifies this? It doesn't seem legal to me that someone can lay down in the lane to stop someone from driving. Does the principle of verticality still stay in play? Thanks in advance.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

Not arguing you, just curious what rule clarifies this? It doesn't seem legal to me that someone can lay down in the lane to stop someone from driving. Does the principle of verticality still stay in play? Thanks in advance.

Well, I just took the test tonight, and several things in there that I would have sworn were a certain way in the rulebook, weren't. Fortunately, it was an open book test. But I'd swear that wording very similar to what I said is somewhere in the rulebook or the case book, but I can't find it. I'm almost certain I'm right, but then I was equally certain that the R didn't have to actually toss the ball, just designate who would do it. So, right now, I'm not 100% sure. I know for sure that lying down is not legal in college, even if you just fell there, and couldn't get up, and I thought it was the opposite in hs, but I can't find the cite. I'll let you know when I do.

I don't really think there's much way to apply verticality. And I dont think it would be legal to actually purposefully lay down as a way to get in someone's way. It's just that if you fall, you are "entitled to your spot on the floor" and no one is allowed to "play through" you.

[rainmaker]

Okay, well, I'm really not as organized as MTDSr, and I do'nt have all my old books filed in date order and flagged for important items. But in hunting around for this cite, I find that the wording I'm seeking is in case 10.6.1 Sit E in the 2004-05 case book.

"B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control ofthe ball and falls to the floor. Ruling: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he'she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling downs. (7-4-1,2)"

I don't get why the cite is for 7-4-1,2. But there's the wording.

My question is, since that's not in the case book any more, is it still applicable?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

Not arguing you, just curious what rule clarifies this? It doesn't seem legal to me that someone can lay down in the lane to stop someone from driving. Does the principle of verticality still stay in play? Thanks in advance.

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.

[RookieDude]

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.