Rebounder Falls on Defender

[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?

[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.

[bc7]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

.

Right now, you seem like a whining Duke fanboy.

Hey! There's nothing wrong with being a Duke fanboy!

Are we going to discuss whether or not the Wake player pushed off to get that open on the final shot?

I didn't think so.

[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.