Triping Over Players on Floor...

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mdray

if B1 is laying on the floor, right behind and out of the field of vision of A1, and non-incidental contact (A1 falling to the floor) occurs, that's a blocking foul on B1(caused by an illegal screen if you will)

Case 10.6.1E, last in the 2004-05 case book (typos are mine):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 of the ball and falls to the floor. RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effrot 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 down.

That should clear up how the FED *wanted* the play called. Open for discussion, of course, is the unresolved "are case plays that are no longer published still valid?"

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Case 10.6.1E, 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 of the 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 down.

Thanks. I only thought Nevadaref pulled up interpretations from many years ago. You also saved Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. a trip up to his very, very cold attic.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

Did A trip over B on the floor? Or
Did B trip A while on the floor? In my mind there is a difference. We don't call a tripping foul everytime someone falls down do we?

Similar to what I say, usually to coaches who politely ask: "There's a difference between tripping, and being tripped".

[mdray]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Case 10.6.1E, last in the 2004-05 case book (typos are mine):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 of the ball and falls to the floor. RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effrot 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 down.

That should clear up how the FED *wanted* the play called. Open for discussion, of course, is the unresolved "are case plays that are no longer published still valid?"

thanks for citing this...what if A1 had not lost control of the ball when he/she fell to the floor....the caseplay cited would seem to imply that a travel call would be the correct call at that point....

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by mdray

thanks for citing this...what if A1 had not lost control of the ball when he/she fell to the floor....the caseplay cited would seem to imply that a travel call would be the correct call at that point....

All that's important is that if a player goes to the ground while maintaining player control, it is a travel if there is not a foul or other violation first.

In this case, yes, absolutely, it's a travel.