Rebounder Falls on Defender

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by fiasco

It was pretty conclusive. WFU player was on the floor. Duke player grabbed a rebound, his foot came down on top of the WFU player, which caused him to fall to the floor. It was pretty cut and dry.

I'm not disputing the facts of the play. I'm saying that I'm not sure that the NCAA desires this play ruling to apply to that situation. It may be intended only for the situation in which a dribbler or other non-airborne player trips over a fallen opponent.

I have nothing conclusive either way about the desire of the NCAA rules makers.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

It was pretty conclusive. WFU player was on the floor. Duke player grabbed a rebound, his foot came down on top of the WFU player, which caused him to fall to the floor. It was pretty cut and dry.

Now are you saying that not a single part of the person fell on the floor, but only fell directly on top of the player on the floor?

Originally Posted by fiasco

Now, I understand the sentiment of not wanting to send the #1 team in the country to the line with 2.8 seconds left just because a guy was lying on the floor, but I guess I'm just not clear on when rules are supposed to be set aside for the greater context of the game and when they're not.

When was LGP established by the WF player?

I personally do not care about who was on the floor and what their ranking was. That is not my concern. I am suggesting where is the rules support to call a foul for players simply falling. Was this not during a rebound?

Peace

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I'm not disputing the facts of the play. I'm saying that I'm not sure that the NCAA desires this play ruling to apply to that situation. It may be intended only for the situation in which a dribbler or other non-airborne player trips over a fallen opponent.

I have nothing conclusive either way about the desire of the NCAA rules makers.

Wow, this is parsing at its best.

Just admit it, Nevada. It's ok. We all know that, cosmetically, you have to call the travel in this instance. I understand why you have to call the travel, but let's stop pretending and hiding behind what we don't know about what "the NCAA desires" as far as rules go.

We know the rule. A player lying on the floor does not have LGP. We also know that if an offensive player is put at an obvious disadvantage by a player not in LGP, it is normally called a foul.

By the book, it should have been a foul. But not everything on ESPN primetime is done by the book. No?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

By the book, it should have been a foul. But not everything on ESPN primetime is done by the book. No?

Reference please??

Peace

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Reference please??

Peace

Nevada already gave us a rule reference stating that a player on the floor does not have LGP.

Do you really need a rule reference stating that if a defender displaces an offensive player while not having LGP a foul should be called?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Wow, this is parsing at its best.

Just admit it, Nevada. It's ok. We all know that, cosmetically, you have to call the travel in this instance. I understand why you have to call the travel, but let's stop pretending and hiding behind what we don't know about what "the NCAA desires" as far as rules go.

We know the rule. A player lying on the floor does not have LGP. We also know that if an offensive player is put at an obvious disadvantage by a player not in LGP, it is normally called a foul.

By the book, it should have been a foul. But not everything on ESPN primetime is done by the book. No?

My personal opinion of the play has never been stated, nor does it matter. This is not about me. It's about the rules. There are many times in which a player does not need to have LGP in order to be fouled. LGP may not have anything to do with this play. I don't know. I suggest that you email John Adams and Ed Bilik and get an answer from them.

Right now, you seem like a whining Duke fanboy.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My personal opinion of the play has never been stated, nor does it matter. This is not about me. It's about the rules. There are many times in which a player does not need to have LGP in order to be fouled. LGP may not have anything to do with this play. I don't know. I suggest that you email John Adams and Ed Bilik and get an answer from them.

Right now, you seem like a whining Duke fanboy.

Here we go. If you can't make a rational argument based on the rules, might as well trot out the old "fanboy" moniker.

Well played, Nevada. One of your best arguments yet. Surprised you didn't call me a spineless moron this time, though.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There are many times in which a player does not need to have LGP in order to be fouled.

Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, explain to me exactly what you are getting at here.

I'm not positing that the player on the FLOOR (the one who did not have LGP) was fouled, but rather that he DID THE FOULING.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Here we go. If you can't make a rational argument based on the rules, might as well trot out the old "fanboy" moniker.

Well played, Nevada. One of your best arguments yet. Surprised you didn't call me a spineless moron this time, though.

I disagree with Nevada a lot and the way he sometimes debates issues on this and other sites!!!

He has not once done anything in this thread but explain or ask for of the current interpretations. You on the other hand have used the hyperbole to justify your point of view by talking about the team rankings and who was watching on TV. I think he has completely addressed you respectfully and tried to answer your questions (as have I). If anyone has tried to have a rational discussion it was Nevada and me. He just pointed out what might be your motivation after you want to argue over language which you have yet to show or prove.

Peace

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I disagree with Nevada a lot and the way he sometimes debates issues on this and other sites!!!

He has not once done anything in this thread but explain or ask for of the current interpretations. You on the other hand have used the hyperbole to justify your point of view by talking about the team rankings and who was watching on TV. I think he has completely addressed you respectfully and tried to answer your questions (as have I). If anyone has tried to have a rational discussion it was Nevada and me. He just pointed out what might be your motivation after you want to argue over language which you have yet to show or prove.

Peace

On the contrary. Nevada's first reply was not about the rules, but called into question that it was Duke involved and the circumstances surrounding the situation (putting Duke on the line late in a big game). Any straying from the strict discussion of the rules was his doing, not mine.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

On the contrary. Nevada's first reply was not about the rules, but called into question that it was Duke involved and the circumstances surrounding the situation (putting Duke on the line late in a big game). Any straying from the strict discussion of the rules was his doing, not mine.

Yes, and he did so (I will not speak for him) from what I could tell based on the reality that there was no support for that kind of call. And it would have been shaky at best to make such a call. I have to admit his reaction was similar to my reaction when you started accusing the official's integrity by that claim as well.

I am not a big Duke fan, but my opinion on this topic has nothing to do with the teams. I would say the very same thing if this was Alphabet soup U vs. Another Alphabet soup College. I see nothing (still) that suggests there should have been a foul, other than who you think was involved.

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Peace

[Spence]

So should I call a foul if I see this or not?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by fiasco

We know the rule. A player lying on the floor does not have LGP. We also know that if an offensive player is put at an obvious disadvantage by a player not in LGP, it is normally called a foul.

By the book, it should have been a foul.

That is not at all clear to me. Consider this situation: A1 dives onto the floor to recover a loose ball. While he has possession of the ball and is still flat on his back looking for an open teammate, A2 runs by him. A1 sees his teammate streaking towards to other end of the court and realizes that he will very likely score if A1 is able to get the ball to him. So A1 throws a pass in A2's direction. However, B2, who is running back on defense, and is clearly the only player who has a chance to catch A2, trips over A1 and falls down. He was only looking at A2 and the ball and never saw A1 lying on the court in his path. Is that a foul on A1 because he doesn't have LGP? I seriously doubt it.

Or try this: The ball is going OOB and A1 dives in an attempt to save it. He is not able to control the ball, but is able to knock the ball into open space in an inbounds area of the court. A1 ends up lying face down on the floor with his body half inbounds and half OOB. B2 was standing nearby and now takes off running after the ball at full speed. He trips over the leg of the prone A1 and falls down. Is that a foul on A1?

Or even simpler: A1 is able to gain control of the ball in the above situation and manages to remain inbounds. However, he is prone on the floor. B2 who was also pursuing the ball, but got there a clear second later than A1 now reaches the scene and trips over A1 and falls down. Is that a PC foul?

Originally Posted by fiasco

Nevada already gave us a rule reference stating that a player on the floor does not have LGP.

Do you really need a rule reference stating that if a defender displaces an offensive player while not having LGP a foul should be called?

Yes, I think that we need further clarification because it is doubtful that the play ruling which I cited in post #15 is to cover all situations in which a player is lying on the floor. Particularly, I find the situations that I just posted above to be outside the scope of the approved ruling.

[mutantducky]

In that case I'm bending the rules and I'm going to either call a block if I feel it is warranted or if it is incidental/accidental contact which I completely thought it was then I'm going to ignore the travel. Yeah that's right, ignore it. Let them play on. I felt there should not have been a whistle in the Duke-WF for either foul or a travel.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

In that case I'm bending the rules and I'm going to either call a block if I feel it is warranted or if it is incidental/accidental contact which I completely thought it was then I'm going to ignore the travel. Yeah that's right, ignore it. Let them play on. I felt there should not have been a whistle in the Duke-WF for either foul or a travel.

Nah, when a player who is holding the ball goes to the floor, there has to be a whistle. The official must make one call or the other.

Standing there like a dope isn't a viable option.