Rebounder Falls on Defender

[DAbills2251]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If a traveling violation took place before contact on the floor, it would not matter unless you deemed the player (that fell) to do something flagrant or intentional.

That being said it is possible that a player would be in legal guarding position at one time, but it does not sound like it based on how this play was described.

Either way it is a stretch in my opinion to call a foul on this play and common sense would be to call the violation.

Peace

Okay I see what you mean. Now that I look back, this might not have been a travel at all, because his feet were never on the floor, they landed on the defender... Whatever, I guess they didn't make as bad of a call as I thought. Thanks

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by DAbills2251

Okay I see what you mean. Now that I look back, this might not have been a travel at all, because his feet were never on the floor, they landed on the defender... Whatever, I guess they didn't make as bad of a call as I thought. Thanks

I must qualify again; I did not see the play. I doubt that no part of the body of the player falling, did not hit the floor at some point and players falling onto each other are not necessarily a foul either by rule. If anything it could have easily been incidental to players falling down.

Peace

[eyezen]

I saw the play, it was a good call. Both were going down regardless, any contact was incidental.

Put it this way, with 2.8 seconds to go and a tie ball game with the #1 vs #4 teams in the country, two referees called the travel and signaled as they were working in Sat morning rec league. I'm fairly certain the correct call was made.

[Nevadaref]

At the NFHS level there was an old case play which stated that it was not a foul to be tripped over while lying on the floor. It no longer appears in the Case Book.

At the NCAA level there is a current approved ruling that a defender does not have LGP while lying on the floor and that it is a blocking foul if the offensive player trips over him.

I can't say conclusively whether that play ruling should apply to the situation in the Duke/WF game.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

At the NFHS level there was an old case play which stated that it was not a foul to be tripped over while lying on the floor. It no longer appears in the Case Book.

At the NCAA level there is a current approved ruling that a defender does not have LGP while lying on the floor and that it is a blocking foul if the offensive player trips over him.

I can't say conclusively whether that play ruling should apply to the situation in the Duke/WF game.

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, 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.

[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.

[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?

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

Yup, AR 98 might be applicable for an airborne player who didn't jump vertically.

[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

[Nevadaref]

NCAA Basketball

2009 MEN’S & WOMEN’S CASE BOOK, page 40

A.R. 97.
B1 slips to the floor in the free throw lane. A1 (with his/her
back to B1, who is prone) receives a pass, turns and, in his or
her attempt to drive to the basket, trips and falls over B1.
RULING: Foul on B1, who has taken an illegal defensive position.
(Rule 4-35.4.a)

[amusedofficial]

Worse was the commentary from a certain color announcer annoucing that a charge was the right call when the overhead clearly showed the defender turning forward into the offensive player after getting LGP.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

NCAA Basketball

2009 MEN’S & WOMEN’S CASE BOOK, page 40

A.R. 97.
B1 slips to the floor in the free throw lane. A1 (with his/her
back to B1, who is prone) receives a pass, turns and, in his or
her attempt to drive to the basket, trips and falls over B1.
RULING: Foul on B1, who has taken an illegal defensive position.
(Rule 4-35.4.a)

I concur on this as well.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

I concur on this as well.

But it doesn't apply to the Duke/WF situation.