Rebounder Falls on Defender

[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?

[Jurassic Referee]

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?

Yup, a foul should have been called on the Dook player. See:

A.R.98 B1 takes a spot on the playing court before A1 jumps to catch a pass. (1) A1 returns to the playing court and lands on B1, or (2) B1 moves to a new spot and while A1 is airborne. A1 returns to the floor on one foot and charges into B1.
RULING: in both (1) and (2), the foul shall be on A1 because B1 is entitled to that spot on the floor provided that he/she gets there legally before the offensive player becomes airborne.

Note that in AR98 #1, it doesn't specify whether the "spot on the playing court" taken by B1 is laying down or standing up. Note that "jumps to catch a pass" is no different than "jumps to catch a rebound". Note that A.R. 97 refers to an offensive player on the floor moving into a defensive player, not an airborne player landing on a defender.

I didn't see the play...but if the WF player was on the floor before the Dook player jumped and the Dook player didn't jump straight up and down, AR98 sureasheck might be applicable.


Also, FYI, there was an NCAA Directive issued back in 1990 that is still in force:
NCAA Directive 113: If there is any doubt when contact occurs, the foul should automatically be charged to the precious little Dookie player, not the opponent. In addition, a technical foul should automatically also be charged to the whiny little hemmorhoid that coaches Duke.

[Raymond]

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?

Since when does LGP apply to rebounders? WF player was the floor and rebounder landed on him and fell. A.R. 97 does not address rebounding action.

[Rich]

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?

Again, he's not a "defender" and LGP has nothing to do with this.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.