Rebounder Falls on Defender

[Spence]

Duke/Wake game. Duke rebounder rebounds a Wake miss. Wake player is lying on the floor. Duke player lands on him and then falls to the ground while maintaining possession of the ball. Travel called.

Correct?

[grunewar]

I saw the play.....what do you think their other choices were?

PS - interesting ending to this game.

[JRutledge]

Sounds good to me and I did not see the play in question.

Peace

[Raymond]

I'm thinking the WF player was at that spot first, no different than if the rebounder had landed on his foot.

[LSams]

Originally Posted by grunewar

PS - interesting ending to this game.

complete defensive breakdown by Duke in the last 2.8

[DAbills2251]

I just registered to ask the same question. I'm wondering if a foul should have been called on the Wake player..because I don't believe that laying on the floor is a legal defensive position. Anyone with a greater knowledge of basketball know about this rule?

[Freddy]

This is very close to a question on our MHSAA test last year on which the state dictated that "travel" was the proper call.

Opinions around the state varied, due to many who consider that the player on the floor has committed a blocking foul, since he did not have legal guarding position (4-23-2 was cited as evidence contrary to the state ruling: "To obtain LGP, a. the guard must have both feet touching the playing court.")

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by DAbills2251

I just registered to ask the same question. I'm wondering if a foul should have been called on the Wake player..because I don't believe that laying on the floor is a legal defensive position. Anyone with a greater knowledge of basketball know about this rule?

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

[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

[DonInKansas]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Opinions around the state varied, due to many who consider that the player on the floor has committed a blocking foul, since he did not have legal guarding position (4-23-2 was cited as evidence contrary to the state ruling: "To obtain LGP, a. the guard must have both feet touching the playing court.")

I can have both feet on the floor AND be laying on the floor. It's not difficult.

[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]

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)