1st time ever

[Jurassic Referee]

This is from the 2001-02 NFHS case book. It has since disappeared but the rule that it is based on (Rule 4-23-1) hasn't changed. Iow there is no valid reason imo that this case play is no longer applicable.

Case Play 10.6.1 SITUATION E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor.
RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even though it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.


Rule 4-23-1 GUARDING: Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.


As I said, we seem to discuss this almost monthly, with a consensus that the case play is still valid as the rule it is based on hasn't changed. For anybody that disagrees, I suggest contacting your local rules interpreter and give them the sutuation as well as the rule and old case play written above...and get their take on it.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

This is from the 2001-02 NFHS case book. It has since disappeared but the rule that it is based on (Rule 4-23-1) hasn't changed. Iow there is no valid reason imo that this case play is no longer applicable.

Case Play 10.6.1 SITUATION E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor.
RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even though it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.


Rule 4-23-1 GUARDING: Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.


As I said, we seem to discuss this almost monthly, with a consensus that the case play is still valid as the rule it is based on hasn't changed. For anybody that disagrees, I suggest contacting your local rules interpreter and give them the sutuation as well as the rule and old case play written above...and get their take on it.

Then I'll just have to change my ruling based on the casebook play and following your line of logic that the rule it is based on hasn't changed. There's still a chance they removed it because they disagreed with the ruling. I hope if they did that they would send out an interpetaion or update the rulebook to indicate the change. Or it could be that they just needed to make room. That's probably the reason.

I understand they periodically remove case plays even though the rule or interpretation hasn't changed. I assume it's because they want to keep the size of the book to a something less than War and Peace size!

[Pantherdreams]

Let the submarining begin . . dive, dive, dive!!!!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Let the submarining begin . . dive, dive, dive!!!!

Not allowed as a tactic, I would consider that an advantage not intended by the rules, as well as a safety issue. The rule (and case play so thoughtfully provided by Jurassic) is a protection for players who fall in the normal course of the game; not for players who get on all fours to set a blind screen.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not allowed as a tactic, I would consider that an advantage not intended by the rules, as well as a safety issue.

Yup, as well as being good ol' common sense also.....

One play can come up naturally during a game; the other one isn't a basketball play.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rwest

I understand they periodically remove case plays even though the rule or interpretation hasn't changed. I assume it's because they want to keep the size of the book to a something less than War and Peace size!

That's my understanding also.

Unfortunately that doesn't help when we have to resurrect old case plays or past interpretations that were posted on the NFHS website but never made it into the case book either. You can't blame people, especially newer officials, for not being aware of some of these oldies but goodies. That's where this forum can come into play as a aid to learning.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

That's my understanding also.

Unfortunately that doesn't help when we have to resurrect old case plays or past interpretations that were posted on the NFHS website but never made it into the case book either. You can't blame people, especially newer officials, for not being aware of some of these oldies but goodies. That's where this forum can come into play as a aid to learning.

I don't believe I've ever seen that case play. I started in 2003. Therefore, I believe I missed this play by a year! They need to have a repository of old case plays that are still in effect but have been removed for space purposes. That way we can look them up.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rwest

They need to have a repository of old case plays that are still in effect but have been removed for space purposes. That way we can look them up.

Agree.

I've found this following link to be invaluable, which is why I've book-marked it.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...s-archive.html

It's a summary of past interpretations that have been posted on the NFHS web site. And some of these seem to be constantly argued on this and other similar forums also.