Rebounder Falls on Defender
 

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?

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

PS - interesting ending to this game.

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

Peace

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

complete defensive breakdown by Duke in the last 2.8

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?

Travel or "No LGP"?
 

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.")

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

I can have both feet on the floor AND be laying on the floor. It's not difficult.
http://pro.corbis.com/images/42-1668...-4f0398f105d1}

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

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.

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.

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'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.

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?

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

in those rare cases when it does happen yeah I just might ignore it. At least the call doesn't seem too controversial. From everything I've seen about the game WF outplayed Duke and they broke down defensively on that last play which Dicky V called. he got that one right

Same game; worse play
 

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.

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

<b><u>A.R.98</u></b> B1 takes a spot on the playing court <b>before</b> 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.
<b>RULING:</b> 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:
<b>NCAA Directive 113:</b> 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.

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

OK, that made me laugh! :p

Although, Coach K was very reserved after the loss and I didn't see him whine or complain at all. I think he was more disappointed at the easy score at the end and figured - to lose on a basic, simple play like that (regardless of the "slight push"), they didn't deserve to win.

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.

I'm not sure what "guarding position" has to do with it.

It was a loose ball rebounded with the Wake player occupying a spot that the Duke player landed on. Words being thrown around on both threads discussing this like "the defensive player" mean nothing here. There is no defense. It was the rebound of a shot.

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

I concur on this as well.

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

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.

I brought up my opinion in post #35. What say you?

of course not
 

hey the kid that made the final shot is a kid from Wyoming....not often we get kids in the ACC let alone that get to hit a winning shot against Duke, so being from Wyoming nope, looked clean to me :) :D

Well here's the play in question. It happens at the 3:08 mark of this clip.

You make the call. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOi2kelADoY

After viewing the clip.....

There's nothing even close to a foul on that play. You won't find an official anywhere in the world that'll give you that call, fanboy. If they did, it would be their last game at that level.

The WF player was laying on the court well before the Duke player jumped.

Good call.

.... Oh, a rules question is still being debated? I can't get over Rut defending Nevada. I'm glad, it means I don't have to make my mortgage payment, because Jesus is coming back tomorrow!!

That is all that happened? You have got to be kidding me that someone wants a foul for that? Why not a foul on the Duke player? :rolleyes:

Peace

Golly, but I sure hope you mean 'lying'. :eek::eek:

I say "no call" on the game winning basket.

Why are you accusing the WF player of not telling the truth? :confused: :D

For me it was fun actually viewing the end of the game, because I was only able to listen to the WF call on the radio (XM) on the way home from my game. I was able to see the play where the announcers originally thought the Duke player stepped OOB, because the official blew the whistle and was pointing at the floor, but it was actually a foul call. (Just another reason to be crisp and clear on signals so everyone knows exactly what you've got.)

I agree with what's been stated so far - travel and not a foul, no push-off, too easy a basket for the last shot. Oh, and I've used NCAA Directive #113 faithfully every time I've officiated in the ACC.

I guess I should have also mentioned that I know that would NEVER be called in that situation, but hey I was depressed, sue me :)

I will also say that after watching the replay from the normal camera angle it is not much of a push off. The replay that I was remembering from last night looked a lot worse. But then again, maybe that was just because I had my Duke colored glasses on.

I'm a Duke fan, listened to the game on XM but watched the highlights.

No pushoff, may have appeared that way but 15 (Henderson) switched and the screener for Wake just slipped right to the basket. It was such a bad defensive play, you figured there HAD to be a push off. Just another example that you need to anticipate the play, not the call.

For the record, I don't like it one bit, but I don't see how you come out of it without a travel call. And two of them had it, C and new T. It looked like T gave the call, and C mimicked, as there was a double whistle. Again, good example of good officiating in a critical spot - a slight hesitation from C, probably some eye contact with T, and the right call in a tight spot.

Still stinks though :mad: