1st time ever

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

He's entitled to his spot on the floor and he beat A1 to that spot and there is no time and distance required when defending the player with the ball.

Now, I'm calling a foul, but based on what has been posted, many should call a travel if they really believe what they have said. Everything is there: LGP, spot on the floor, no time or distance required for a player with the ball.

If he's moving and cuts off A1's path, it's a foul whether he's on the floor or not. If, however, there was time for his momentum to cease, then A1 has time to go around him. If he's moving, LGP is required but was never attained.

BTW, if A1 is dribbling, I won't be calling a travel. Most likely, it'll be a no-call (assuming B1 had stopped sliding by the time contact was made.)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

Assuming the OP but make one minor correction. Lets say B1 is attempting to get up when A1 trips over them. Are you going to call a foul? If you do then might I suggest if you believe B1 is entitled to lay prone on the ground then you also have to give him that spot on the floor all the way to the ceiling due to the principle of verticality. A player is allowed to move vertically from his spot on the floor.

Now I would have a foul, becuase I don't believe that player is entitled to that spot. Now if he doesn't move, then I have a travel, because the offensive player initiated the contact. A1 didn't have to attempt to go over B1 laying on the ground. He chose to and he is the one that caused the contact.

Remember, when interpreting any document you must take the entire document into consideration. If the player is entitled to lay prone on the floor then they are entitled to verticality from that same spot to the ceiling.

Either he's entitled to his spot or he's not. If he's not, then it doesn't matter who initiated the contact; as the rules don't mention that. It's short hand and coachspeak, but it's not rule based.

I don't need a lesson on how to read the rule book.

BTW, yes. If B1 is trying to get up off the floor and A1 runs over him, it's all on A1. A1 didn't have to run over B1 any more than B1 needed to get up. In fact, I'd say under your rules, B1 has more of an imperative to get up than A1 has to jump over B1.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Either he's entitled to his spot or he's not. If he's not, then it doesn't matter who initiated the contact; as the rules don't mention that. It's short hand and coachspeak, but it's not rule based.

I don't need a lesson on how to read the rule book.

BTW, yes. If B1 is trying to get up off the floor and A1 runs over him, it's all on A1. A1 didn't have to run over B1 any more than B1 needed to get up. In fact, I'd say under your rules, B1 has more of an imperative to get up than A1 has to jump over B1.

Will just have to agree to disagree, again.

[Amesman]

rwest, I respectfully think you're getting tied up trying to interpret the next step (no pun intended -- enjoyed, but not intended) too much.

You can't be serious if you think a player who has tripped or been laid out flat on the floor -- and then is getting up but making no movement toward a ballhandler -- isn't entitled to get up from where he splatted.

Look at it this way: B1 somehow falls, trips or otherwise gets picked and crumples to the ground near, say, the division line. Ball goes into the paint but then A1 busts out with the ball and a full head of steam heading the other way, toward our recovering B1.

You gonna tell us that you're calling a foul on B1 for 1) either lying there face down (as in OP) or 2) simply standing up from his position when there's contact? (Envision him either getting up groggy or just straight up, not reaching, extending a leg, etc.)

That has nothing to do with LGP but rather his right to own that piece of the floor. Yes, even if it isn't a cylinder and has the jagged edges of a chalked in crime scene victim (presumed he/she isn't grasping for more space or an opponent's leg at the time ...)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rwest

He's entitled to his spot on the floor and he beat A1 to that spot and there is no time and distance required when defending the player with the ball.

Now, I'm calling a foul, but based on what has been posted, many should call a travel if they really believe what they have said. Everything is there: LGP, spot on the floor, no time or distance required for a player with the ball.

There's no time and distance required to estqablish LGP. B did not establish LGP. So, B did not get to the spot legally. Foul on B.

[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!!!!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by grunewar

4-23 GUARDING
ART. 1 . . . Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an
offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard
and opponent, but the maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded. Every player is
entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first
without illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder,
hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position
if contact occurs.
ART. 2 . . . To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard’s torso must be facing the opponent.
ART. 3 . . . After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne,
provided he/she has inbound status.
b. The guard is not required to continue facing the opponent.
c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it
is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.
d. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane.
e. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact.
ART. 4 . . . Guarding an opponent with the ball or a stationary opponent without
the ball:
a. No time or distance is required to obtain an initial legal position.
b. If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal
position before the opponent left the floor.
ART. 5 . . . Guarding a moving opponent without the ball:
a. Time and distance are factors required to obtain an initial legal position.
b. The guard must give the opponent the time and/or distance to avoid
contact.
c. The distance need not be more than two strides.
d. If the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position
before the opponent left the floor.

How long do I have to be stationary before I no longer need to have a LGP?

B1 has his back to A1 within 6' of A1. A1 dribbles to his right. B1 moves to his right, cutting off A1's path to the basket, but becomes stationary before A1 contacts B1.

B1 never had a LGP as he was never facing A1. B1 moved towards A1 so would have lost LGP even if he had earlier established it. However, B1 was stationary when A1 contacted him.

Is this really a player control foul?

[Adam]

Yes. Time and distance aren't a factor when the player has the ball. PC foul.