Defender intentionally falls onto hands and knees...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

But I'm also not entirely convinced having his player take that stance is unsporting. In NFHS, B1 is entitled to a spot on the floor, whether standing or lying down. If B1 takes that position after A1 receives the ball, there are no time and distance in screening requirements. If B1 were to trip and go down, then A1 falls over B1, wouldn't we (probably) call traveling? Why would we call a T if B1 takes the same position intentionally? Why do penalize B for taking a legal position, and A is not aware of the position of their defender?

Personally, I wouldn't deem the action "unsporting". Instead, I'd call it "illegal", using the concept outlined in FED 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." Going to the floor like that is not a normal position and it sureasheck is "rough tactics" to deliberately trip an opponent. That's close enough for me.

The other point is that I don't think that you can call a "T". It would have to be a personal foul of some kind, most likely an intentional personal foul.

My take on it......intentional personal foul. But I sureasheck ain't ever gonna make a call like that if I've let the post player get away with forcefully pushing/bouncing a defender off a legal position. That's called adding insult to injury.

Thoughts?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Thoughts?

I usually have none.

Oh, wait, you're talking about the subject at hand? I agree it shouldn't be a T. I'm just not convinced it can be a foul, either common or intentional, as the player is stationary and not the one initiating contact, especially given the context of the original play. A1 has been backing down B1 in earlier plays, so if A1 is expecting to do the same thing and falls over a stationary B1, I can't see how B1 is responsible for the contact. What specifically is B1 doing that would be considered "illegal"? Tripping is usually an active act, such as sticking a leg or arm out in front of a moving player. Also, how can sitting there motionless be considered rough play? It just seems hard to pick out a good, legitimate reason for calling a foul in this case, even though I think one could be called.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I usually have none.

Oh, wait, you're talking about the subject at hand? I agree it shouldn't be a T. I'm just not convinced it can be a foul, either common or intentional, as the player is stationary and not the one initiating contact, especially given the context of the original play. A1 has been backing down B1 in earlier plays, so if A1 is expecting to do the same thing and falls over a stationary B1, I can't see how B1 is responsible for the contact. What specifically is B1 doing that would be considered "illegal"? Tripping is usually an active act, such as sticking a leg or arm out in front of a moving player. Also, how can sitting there motionless be considered rough play? It just seems hard to pick out a good, legitimate reason for calling a foul in this case, even though I think one could be called.

If a defensive player was standing stationary but leaning their torso out to their left side with their arms straight out to their sides, and an offensive player driving for a basket runs into the defensive player's outsretched arm and/or shoulder, would you call a blocking foul even if the defensive player was stationary? What's the difference? This clearly falls under 'bending his/her body into other than a normal position'.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Smitty

If a defensive player was standing stationary but leaning their torso out to their left side with their arms straight out to their sides, and an offensive player driving for a basket runs into the defensive player's outsretched arm and/or shoulder, would you call a blocking foul even if the defensive player was stationary? What's the difference? This clearly falls under 'bending his/her body into other than a normal position'.

Then anytime a player is on the floor, that player is responsible for contact, even if that player is stationary, only because it's not a "normal" position?

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Then anytime a player is on the floor, that player is responsible for contact, even if that player is stationary, only because it's not a "normal" position?

No. The difference is intentionally putting yourself in an illegal position that disrupts an opponent's ability to get where they want to go. Someone laying on the floor after having fallen did not put themselves in that position intentionally. But if you get down on your hands and knees behind an offensive player, for the purpose of having them trip over you (what other purpose could it be - looking for a contact lens?), then that's a foul.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Smitty

No. The difference is intentionally putting yourself in an illegal position that disrupts an opponent's ability to get where they want to go. Someone laying on the floor after having fallen did not put themselves in that position intentionally. But if you get down on your hands and knees behind an offensive player, for the purpose of having them trip over you (what other purpose could it be - looking for a contact lens?), then that's a foul.

Where in the rules does it describe the difference between "intentionally" being in that position, vs. "unintentional"? Are you saying if a player "unintentionally" puts themselves in that position, they aren't responsible for the foul? Where in the rules does it say that? Where in the rules does it say being on your hands and knees is an "illegal position"? What about the statement in 4-23-1 that says, "Every player is entitled to a spot on the court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent." B1 certainly meets that criteria. B1 is perfectly still, and A1 initiates the contact by backing into B1. If A1 trips over B1's outstretched legs or arms, I can use that as a basis for a foul. But if A1 simply trips over B1's torso, what rule basis do I have for calling a foul on B1? Why wouldn't I call a travel on A1 (assuming A1 held onto the ball while falling)?

Look, I know it don't feel right. But unless someone can come up with a good rule reference, I can't see justification for calling a foul on B1. Again, kudos to the coach for coming up with this scenario.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Where in the rules does it describe the difference between "intentionally" being in that position, vs. "unintentional"? Are you saying if a player "unintentionally" puts themselves in that position, they aren't responsible for the foul? Where in the rules does it say that? Where in the rules does it say being on your hands and knees is an "illegal position"? What about the statement in 4-23-1 that says, "Every player is entitled to a spot on the court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent." B1 certainly meets that criteria. B1 is perfectly still, and A1 initiates the contact by backing into B1. If A1 trips over B1's outstretched legs or arms, I can use that as a basis for a foul. But if A1 simply trips over B1's torso, what rule basis do I have for calling a foul on B1? Why wouldn't I call a travel on A1 (assuming A1 held onto the ball while falling)?

Look, I know it don't feel right. But unless someone can come up with a good rule reference, I can't see justification for calling a foul on B1. Again, kudos to the coach for coming up with this scenario.

FED 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."