Part II: Defender drops on hands and knees...

[PSidbury]

Part I post seemed to get a little far afield from the intial intent.

Forget about displacement or offensive foul calling or non-calling and please allow the intent and focus of this post be about the legality of the B-player dropping to his hands and knees.

The ball goes in to the A-forward on the block and he begins to dribble backwards toward the goal.
However… the B-defender who is between A-player and goal immediately drops to his hands and knees (within his space) and… you guessed it… the A-player backs-up and tumbles over B-player.

1) What is the NFHS ruling on this and what would you guys call and on whom?

2) The assumption is that the B-player has "intentionally" fallen to his hands and knees in order to "stop" the A-player, however what if the B-player falls to his hands and knees as a result of feigning injury of some kind? How would we know the difference?

Thanks,
Paul

[rockyroad]

If you think the defender is doing it deliberately to cause the offensive player to trip over him/her, then you are within the rules to call a block, an intentional foul, possibly even an unsporting Technical (not so sure about that one, but you could probably pull it off).

However, in the original thread, based on what you yourself posted, there should have been some - at least one - PC fouls called on the offensive post for "backing down" the defender...then this situation would never have come up.

[Mark Padgett]

Somehow, I don't think being on your hands and knees qualifies as being in "legal guarding position". What do you guys think?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Somehow, I don't think being on your hands and knees qualifies as being in "legal guarding position". What do you guys think?

I agree being on your hands and knees is not legal guarding position. Hmm, but what if the defender started with legal guarding position (facing the opponent, both feet on the ground); don't the rules say they can move after obtaining legal guarding position? (I'm just trying to channel Nevada.)

But what would be your call if the defender B1 was on the ground, perhaps diving for a loose ball, and A1 picks up the ball, then trips over B1? Legal guarding position would have no bearing on this call, correct?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Somehow, I don't think being on your hands and knees qualifies as being in "legal guarding position". What do you guys think?

I think a legal guarding position isn't required for a stationary player.
Time and distance aren't required for a player guarding the ball handler.

There's nothing inherently illegal about being on his hands and knees and then being contacted by a moving player with the ball.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think a legal guarding position isn't required for a stationary player.
Time and distance aren't required for a player guarding the ball handler.

There's nothing inherently illegal about being on his hands and knees and then being contacted by a moving player with the ball.

I agree; it would be a different matter if B1 were to roll or slide into the back of A1.

(I'm getting this strong sense of deja 'vu....)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I agree; it would be a different matter if B1 were to roll or slide into the back of A1.

(I'm getting this strong sense of deja 'vu....)

Yeah, me too.

[jsblanton]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Somehow, I don't think being on your hands and knees qualifies as being in "legal guarding position". What do you guys think?

exactly what I was thinking!

[Nevadaref]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett
Somehow, I don't think being on your hands and knees qualifies as being in "legal guarding position". What do you guys think?

Originally Posted by jsblanton

exactly what I was thinking!

LGP has nothing to do with this play. A player is entitled to any spot on the floor per 4-23-1.

If that doesn't do it for you, the defender could establish INITIAL LGP and then does not have to keep both feet on the floor or continue facing the opponent in order to maintain it per 4-23-3. Turning away or ducking is specifically allowed.

[PSidbury]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

"Peanut gallery"? "Sheesh"?

From some rookie clown who obviously hasn't figured out which end of the whistle to blow yet?

You didn't learn a damn thing, did ya? You also still haven't learned what was really important about the whole situation that you originally posted either, have ya?

Hint.....it ain't some once-in million, might-never-happen situation. It's about a new official that very obviously doesn't know some very basic rules relating to illegal contact.

Lah me....peanut gallery.....

This is not being playful or a lesson in thick skin or anything else but an insult.

Why?

[PSidbury]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

However, in the original thread...

Uh... no "forceful" backing-down in this scenario.

Déjà vu all over again, indeed

Thanks,
Paul

[Jurassic Referee]

As I posted in t'other thread.....

NFHS rule 10-6-1 is close enough for me, and also meets the purpose and intent of the playing rules imho.

NFHS rule 10-6-1--"A player shall not hold, push, charge, TRIP or impede the progress of an opponent by...bending his/her body into other than a normal position, nor use any rough tactics."

That general rules statement covers the situation being discussed. The defender is bending their body into a position that could hardly be called "normal" on a basketball court, and tripping an opponent can also easily be labeled "rough tactics".

Soooooo.......imo it can be justified to call it an intentional personal foul.

It's completely different than a player slipping and falling to the court, and then having an opponent trip over them. The first act was done to deliberately gain an unfair advantage not intended under the purpose and intent of the rules. The second was done accidentally.

Again, jmho.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

NFHS rule 10-6-1--"A player shall not hold, push, charge, TRIP or impede the progress of an opponent by...bending his/her body into other than a normal position, nor use any rough tactics." That general rules statement covers the situation being discussed. The defender is bending their body into a position that could hardly be called "normal" on a basketball court, and tripping an opponent can also easily be labeled "rough tactics".

Simple. To the point. Proper citation.

That's, that's, that's all folks.

[Nevadaref]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the physical position of the defender on his hands and knees. That is not what any official should penalize.
The problem here is the tactic of purposely adopting that position with the intent to put his opponent in a dangerous situation. Simply put the idea of the defender is to do something unfair and unsafe. That cannot be allowed and must be penalized.

I would not penalize based upon the physical contact which may or may not take place in this specific case. I would penalize based upon the mental process undertaken by the defender. His conciously chose to do something not within the spirit of fair play. That meets the definition of an unsporting foul. Thus the penalty that I select is an unsporting technical foul and it occurs as soon as the defender adopts this position, but I may withhold the whistle to allow the opponent to finish his scoring play and then enforce the penalty. So again any physical contact is not the central issue.

I know that the criticism of this method of handling the situation is going to be that an official cannot read the mind of a player or that one doesn't know if the defender is injured. In answer to that I say that it can quickly be determined whether the player is hurt or not, and while an official can never know exactly what a player or coach is thinking reasonable determinations of such can be made from their actions. Afterall, that is why we get paid the big bucks!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by PSidbury

Déjà vu all over again, indeed

Have you got any response to the almost unanimous answers that you received in the other thread? You know, where everybody told you that it was completely ridiculous NOT to call an immediate player control foul on a post player with the ball dislodging a defender with a legal stance. Have you changed your mind on what the right call should have been under those circumstances?

Just kinda wondering....because I haven't seen any response from you yet to the answers that you received in the other thread.