Triping Over Players on Floor...

[mdray]

from my original sit: when A1 hits the floor, in control of the ball, are you saying "play on"? you can't be calling a traveling violation, could you?

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by mdray

from my original sit: when A1 hits the floor, in control of the ball, are you saying "play on"? you can't be calling a traveling violation, could you?

I wasn't going beyond the contact, but if A1 trips, controls/holds the ball and goes to the floor then yes I have a travel...how could you have nothing there? What if A1 goes down the lane, brushes the shoulder of B1 who is standing still in the lane (you judge to be no foul either way) and as a result of the contact loses his balance and takes three steps with the ball? What do you have?

[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)

[Adam]

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)

Not if A1 has the ball. If A1 has the ball, time and distance are not required.

If A1 does not have the ball, time and distance could be a factor.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not if A1 has the ball. If A1 has the ball, time and distance are not required.

If A1 does not have the ball, time and distance could be a factor.

Upon further review I agree compltely. He could fall at his feet and you are right you don't apply the screening principles to a player with the ball....I just had a hard time in my head penalizing A1 for something completely out of his visual field, but that's the way it goes....

[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.

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mdray

from my original sit: when A1 hits the floor, in control of the ball, are you saying "play on"? you can't be calling a traveling violation, could you?

Yes, you can. You can't ignore the violation.