Triping Over Players on Floor...
 

A1 trips and falls over B1 who was on the floor after diving for a loose ball.

Is this a foul on B1? Is it always called this way? What if A1 sees an opponent on the floor and intentionally falls over them?

1. Perhaps
2. Never
3. A1 is a knucklehead, you know how to manage knuckleheads right?

In general, this is a foul on B1 in college, but not in FED (B1 is allowed to be lying on the floor, as long as the rest of the act of getting there was legal).

In your last example, I'd either have nothing or a foul on A1.

I'd certainly have no call on B laying on the floor. However on A1 the argument could possibly be made that this was a flop, penalized with a T for unsportsmanlike conduct. I'd probably hold off on the T, unless A1 really tried to sell the flop by complaining to me about not calling a foul on B...

How is it a flop if A1 trips and falls over B1? :confused:

OP said A1 intentionally falls over B1. Could be construed as trying to draw a foul, much like a defender falling backwards on purpose during a block/charge scenario.

Now that's just gross. :D

Trying to draw a foul is not illegal.

I had this situation in a high school varsity game: A1 grabs a rebound at B's basket. B1 falls to the floor behind A1. A1 does not see B1 on the floor.
As A1 begins to turn to head up the court, A1 stumbles on B1 and falls to the floor over B1, maintaining player control. no call? travel? foul on B1?

to me, the contact that occurred was the result of B1 not being in a legal guarding position, so I called a foul on B1.....was I wrong?

Triping Over Players on Floor...

What a long, strange tripe it's been. :cool:

good call, foul on B1. i wish more officials would make that call.....

Was B1 moving when contact occurred? If not, why was LGP an issue?

[QUOTE=mdray;569375]I had this situation in a high school varsity game: A1 grabs a rebound at B's basket. B1 falls to the floor behind A1. A1 does not see B1 on the floor.
As A1 begins to turn to head up the court, A1 stumbles on B1 and falls to the floor over B1, maintaining player control. no call? travel? foul on B1?

to me, the contact that occurred was the result of B1 not being in a legal guarding position, so I called a foul on B1.....was I wrong?[/QUOTE

It doesn't sound like B1 was guarding anyone in your example, why is LGP relevant?

Fixed it.

Agree with your statement, but how is mine incorrect? If you are just standing (or in this case lying) somewhere and not guarding anybody then how is LGP relevant?

It's not really, but the question is really moot, I think. Maybe he was guarding him (trying to get the ball, perhaps), maybe he wasn't. That's not the key; the key is whether he was moving.

OK perhaps I should clarify then b/c I assumed he wasn't trying to guard him. If he is just laying there not trying to guard him then LGP is irrelevant b/c he isn't trying to guard him. If he is laying there trying to guard him then LGP is irrlevant b/c he isn't moving. In any event LGP is irrelevant. Better?:)

A1 rebounds the ball and takes off heading for his basket. B3 is standing at the free-throw line with his back to the play. A1 runs into B3 displacing him. What do you have? Now say B3 was laying on the floor when A1 trips over him. What do you have now? Is B3 responsible for contact in either of these sitchs?

PC in first example, probably nothing in second...if he just trips on him that probably isn't enough contact for a foul and there is no advantage gained....if he goes off the top rope and lands on him then I probably have something...

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?

Well, that takes guts. ;)

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?

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.

I don't think it's ever relevant whether he's trying to guard him. :)

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

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....

Just to take it a step further though, what is your definition of "moving"? What if he is trying to get up, is he moving?

My question?

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 dont call a tripping foul everytime somone falls down do we?

B1 was not flopping, etc... B1 was on the floor going after a loose ball making a legitimate attempt..would not B1 be allowed the opportunity to get up etc? (he was at the spot first?)

If A tripped on the player, I'd not be very inclined to call the foul

Had players littering the floor in my game last night. Here's one:

Long, floating pass to A1 halfway down the court. A1 and B1 bump shoulders as they both go for the ball. A1 catches the pass, lands on his feet, sorta falls/sits down, and ends up lying on the court.

I whistle, and the B coach (right behind me) shouts "No!" until I signal travel. Then he's like, "Oh, OK," and we go the other way... ;)

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?"

Great Citation ...
 

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.

Good Perspective ...
 

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

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.