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.")

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 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.")

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.

[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