Layup
 

Scrappy (read ugly) game. Lots of fouls. Not too much talent. Near end A1 misses a layup. Tip tip rebound ball goes up misses tip tip B1 hits the floor tip ball goes up misses tip tip rebound secured by A2. A2 is standing under the basket so he takes a step to his right but can't because B1 is lying there on his side with his arms covering his head. A2 looks down, places his right foot on B1's hip and from there puts in the lay up. You are at C and clearly saw the entire sequence.

What do you do?

I think I resemble that remark. . .

I think I might have an intentional personal foul for stepping on the kid on the floor.

If it had been his teammate, it would be a technical foul for not being a basketball play. Because it's an opponent, I'd call it flagrant technical and toss him. And then come home and write a "what is this world coming to?" post on the forum.

So, what did you do, Dan?

Right - On! Unsporting Violation? Spirit of the rules? Unfair advantage? Intentional foul?

Many ways to get that player a seat.

Unsporting violation? I've heard of unsporting fouls, but unsporting foul = non-contact. Doesn't seem to apply here. (I think you knew that, though, and were just speaking off-the-cuff. But I thought I'd make it explicit.)

Dan, I don't know how you could have described this play any better, but it still seems like one you would have to see to appreciate. If you feel this was intentional, (sounds like that's what you think and it doesn't sound like it could have happened if not intentional) I would say flagrant personal foul, no basket, you can go home now.

A <b>technical</b> foul for live-ball illegal <b>contact</b>?:confused:

You know better than that, Juulie. Gotta be a personal foul of some kind- PC, intentional or flagrant. That determination is up to the calling official.

I think an intentional foul covers it well here.

BTW, this game was played under ncaa rules. The ncaa book contains this under 4.33.4a:

Also says this action is a direct T:

My turn....:D
If A2's pivot foot was his right foot, and he then lifted that pivot foot to take the step, and subsequently put his pivot foot down on B1 to jump off him, is that traveling?:D

How is that applicable to this situation? A2 jumped off an opponent, not a teammate.

Well, it's applicable because A2 didn't jump off a team mate.

btw...might have been nice to calmly come out of that mess with a whistle for a travel, but if he travelled I missed it coach.

How can you call a travel if A2 didn't put his pivot foot back on the <b>floor</b> after he lifted it?:D

I had a feeling that you were thinking about this. But I think this only applies to block/charge plays. And no matter what you called (or didn't call) in your original situation, it doesn't sound to me like a block/charge play.

No, it's not a block/charge.

But the AR is clear - B1 has taken an illegal position.

This is a trick question? Why isn't the lead on top of this if its directly under the basket?

But if I have to make a call -- I've got a block here on B1 -- last I checked on the floor is not LGP. The question is do I count the basket and I think I'd have to see it to make a judgement.

But the offensive player clearly intentionally stepped on an opponent. I don't think I'm allowing that to happen. So I don't think the question of whether B1 had legal guarding position is relevant.

From the description, the player made a move to the basket stepping into their normal lay-up pattern, the only difference is in order to get to the basket, they had to pass through this player in an illegal guarding position.

Had this occurred outside the 3 point line and A2 turned around to go make sure they step on the player, yes I agree with you we've got an IF or FF. But on the way to the basket for a layup, I think the rules pretty clearly state we've got a block here.

Why not?

It would have been a block according to the AR if he fell down.

If a player with the ball pushed off a player beside him with an elbow, would you call a block too because the defender didn't have LGP?

Why not?

If A2 falls down, he's been put at a disadvantage. If A2 jumps off of the defender though, he's gaining an advantage.

I've been gone all day, so I haven't checked in till now.

JR -- I said T because of A2 using something to illegally get taller. Then I called it flagrant because it was an opponent. I thought about live-ball contact, but the contact wasn't the basis for the technical. I'd be fine with a flagrant personal, though. Either way, the kid sits...

Dan -- I don't do NCAA, so I don't need to fully understand your citations, but I'm curious. I don't think that the illegal position of B1 is at issue. If A2 tripped, I'd see this as a block by the NCAA rules. But if A2 deliberately reaches his foot out and steps on B1, I don't see how you could penalize for a block. It's gotta be a foul on A2, even if it's not PC or charge. It's just flagrant, isn't it?

Maybe, maybe not.

I notice you didn't say A2 gained an illegal advantage.

Fed or ncaa rule please?
Why?

Juulie, as per NFHS rule 10-3-7(d), you can only call a technical foul if they climb on a <b>teammate</b>. The rule doesn't apply to climbing on an <b>opponent</b>. Illegal contact with an <b>opponent</b> during a live ball is covered under "personal foul" in rule 4-19-1.

That was my point.

PS- the NCAA rule reads exactly the same way iirc.

I noticed that you haven't answered my question yet either as to whether it would be traveling if A2 picked up his pivot foot, and then brought it down on B2 and then jumped off of B2.

Can't get nuthin by you. You're right, I didn't answer it. But that aint what happened. Now go start your own thread, m'kay?

Can't get nuthin' by you. You're right. I didn't say it. :D

Can't get nuthin' by none of us! :D

(what's the question again?)

Where's Chuck?

He's at home in front of the mirror practicing his mechanics.

Either that or he's out buying an extra-large economy box of DEPENDS for Wednesday night.:p

I'm relatively new to this whole reffing thing, but I would call a flagrant foul on A2. Whether or not B1 had LGP is irrelevant, since this is not a block/charge situation.

If B1 was guarding A2, and A2 punched him in the face, the foul would still be on A2 no matter what. From how you described it, Dan, A2 made deliberate contact with B1 and the contact was excessive.

Not sure of the NCAA rules, but from NFHS:

Justification for the foul is found under NFHS 10-6-1, "A player shall not: hold, push, charge, trip; nor impede the progress of an opponent...blah blah blah...; nor use any rough tactics.."

And for justification on the flagrant:
NFHS 4-19-4 "A flagrant foul... If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as striking, kicking, and kneeing..."

Just to clarify, you're saying 10-6-1 has the foul on B1 right? Because this scenerio seems to be impeding the progress an opponent to me.

Based on the report, A2 stepped on B1 to be able to get a better shot at the basket. In other words, if B1 wasn't impeding A2's progress to the basket, A2 wouldn't have stepped on him. That all seems pretty clear to me.

That wasn't how I read it at all. I read it as A2 took an unnecessary step in order to step on B1. If A2 is looking down at B1 and then steps on him, I have a flagerant intentional foul - intent to injure. If A2 is looking at the basket in an effort to shoot and looses his balance due to B1 I have a common foul on B1.

Yeah, in the original post Dan said that the A2 looked down at B1 then stepped on him, which is why I have the flagrant intentional on A2. If A2 hadn't looked before he stepped, I'd have the foul on B1. The key here is intent.

Dan, the AR you are referring to was added just a couple of years ago, and was specifically explained (at least to us) to cover plays where the defender falls and that causes the offensive player to fall...I don't think this situation is the same thing. As you said in your post, he looked down, saw the defender and then stepped on him - I'm thinking Intentional here...

No such animal.

I have to disagree.

NFHS 4-19-4 "A flagrant foul . . . may or may not be intentional."

The foul is personal (illegal contact), intentional (premeditated) and flagrant (violent).

The <b>act</b> may be intentional. It was simply a bad usage of terminolgy by whoever wrote this one. They should have have used a word like "deliberate" instead of "intentional".

As Bob said, there is no such animal as an intentional flagrant foul- either peronal or technical. The foul may be "intentional" <b>or</b> "flagrant, but it can't be both.

We've gone over this exact same point many times to-date already on this forum.

Right but how can you judge intent if he immediatley shot the ball after stepping? What if you interpret it that he looked down and saw that in order to take the most direct path to the basket, he had a player in his way but pulling out could result in a turnover. His intent was to score a basket, B1 impeded that progress.

From the first post: "A2 is standing under the basket so he takes a step to his right but can't because B1 is lying there on his side with his arms covering his head."

What do you expect A2 to do, it seems he took the only option he could to get a shot off. Should he have waited for B1 to get up or roll out of the way?

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.

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.

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?

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.