1st time ever

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

If the player is not moving (and even if he is in certain directions) you cannot penalize a player for being on the ground in NFHS.

Verticality (or a 'cylinder') has nothing to do with it.

Interesting . .. can't speak for the NFHS we play FIBA. By our rule your initial legal guarding position requires both feet to a planted on the floor. Ten any contact created out side your space until you restablish a new LGP is your foul.

SO for us kid on the floor is not holding a legal guarding position and is responsible for the contact since the offense is entitled to legally take the space he's being tripped in.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Interesting . .. can't speak for the NFHS we play FIBA. By our rule your initial legal guarding position requires both feet to a planted on the floor. Ten any contact created out side your space until you restablish a new LGP is your foul.

SO for us kid on the floor is not holding a legal guarding position and is responsible for the contact since the offense is entitled to legally take the space he's being tripped in.

Didn't think about FIBA rules. I obviously have no idea what your rules say.

The NCAA has a clear case play that makes this contact a foul. That is not the case in NFHS, however.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Interesting . .. can't speak for the NFHS we play FIBA.

Then why are you? If you're answering questions using FIBA rules, you should say so in your answer. That cuts out the confusion a la posting an incorrect answer for FED rulings like you did above.

The play being discussed is not and never has been a foul under NFHS rules. NCAA rules are different.

Player on Floor Legal Guarding Position

That's just the latest thread. There are numerous other ones on this play, all containing the exact same rules citations. This seems to come up almost monthly..and it ends up being answered the exact same way monthly also.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

i'm calling a foul...
1) the contact by the defensive player (who does not have LGP) is what caused the ball handler to fall - that is a foul.
2) the contact interrupted the RSBQ (rhthym, speed, balance, quickness) of the ball handler - that is a foul.
3) after establishing LGP, the defensive player did not move to maintain his LGP - that is a foul.

LGP has nothing to do with this. Assuming the player on the ground was not moving, s/he is entitled to the spot under FED rules. There's a specific case play or interp on this.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Then why are you? If you're answering questions using FIBA rules, you should say so in your answer. That cuts out the confusion a la posting an incorrect answer for FED rulings like you did above.

In fairness to Pantherdreams, the OP didn't specify a rules set (although the OP is from MI). I agree it would be helpful if all questions / answers specidifed the set; and I agree the Forum usually defaults to FED, then NCAA, then FIBA, then NBA, if not specified.

[Refsmitty]

My bad... I will note NFHS from now on

[rwest]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

LGP has nothing to do with this. Assuming the player on the ground was not moving, s/he is entitled to the spot under FED rules. There's a specific case play or interp on this.



In fairness to Pantherdreams, the OP didn't specify a rules set (although the OP is from MI). I agree it would be helpful if all questions / answers specidifed the set; and I agree the Forum usually defaults to FED, then NCAA, then FIBA, then NBA, if not specified.

Bob,

What case play number or interpretation are you referring to?

Thanks!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rwest

Bob,

What case play number or interpretation are you referring to?

Thanks!

Now that I think about it, this might be a case that was removed without comment a couple of years ago.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Now that I think about it, this might be a case that was removed without comment a couple of years ago.

Until I see a case play or rules interpretation I will have to disagree with the majority on this based on my interpretation of the rule book. The rule book, just as any written document, is open to interpretation. Here's some points to consider.

1. The rule book does not define how large a spot a player is entitled to. To say that lying on the floor is legal because you are entitled to a spot on the floor is interpreting the rule book to allow for this. I'm not saying it's wrong just that that is one interpretation. The rule book doesn't say this is legal but it also doesn't say it is illegal.

2. There are rules that imply that there is a limit to the size of the spot on the floor a player is entitled to. For instance, in setting a screen you are not allowed to set your screen wider than your shoulder. Even if you are stationary, you can be called for a foul because you set up to wide. Also, you can't extend your arms, hips or shoulders into the path of a player. If contact occurs you can be called for a foul, even if you are stationary.

3. Stationary players can be called for a foul, as shown above. Why? Because they are not entitled to as large as a spot on the floor as they would like.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by rwest

Until I see a case play or rules interpretation I will have to disagree with the majority on this based on my interpretation of the rule book. The rule book, just as any written document, is open to interpretation. Here's some points to consider.

1. The rule book does not define how large a spot a player is entitled to. To say that lying on the floor is legal because you are entitled to a spot on the floor is interpreting the rule book to allow for this. I'm not saying it's wrong just that that is one interpretation. The rule book doesn't say this is legal but it also doesn't say it is illegal.

2. There are rules that imply that there is a limit to the size of the spot on the floor a player is entitled to. For instance, in setting a screen you are not allowed to set your screen wider than your shoulder. Even if you are stationary, you can be called for a foul because you set up to wide. Also, you can't extend your arms, hips or shoulders into the path of a player. If contact occurs you can be called for a foul, even if you are stationary.

3. Stationary players can be called for a foul, as shown above. Why? Because they are not entitled to as large as a spot on the floor as they would like.

You have established a interesting premise.

The player with the ball willingly stepped over a horizontal player thus losing his balance and falling to the floor with the ball. Unless, this play happened in a restricted area on the court (corners' close to sidelines; or endlines some place). Then, I would go with the travel too.

B could have taking a different path besides stepping directly over A.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Now that I think about it, this might be a case that was removed without comment a couple of years ago.

I hate it when that happens. Seriously.