1st time ever
 

Made a call last night...

Loose ball A1 and B1 going for it. A1 falls flat on face and does not move. B1 gets the ball and steps over A1 to start dribble and trips taking ball to floor.

I call a travel - crowd and coach go nuts - which I knew they would when making the call... but I am positive that I got it right.

Thoughts please

C'mon, what does the crowd know?
 

If it's as you described, sounds good to me.

Had an interesting travel last night in the Wisconsin vs Minnesota game too - Tubby was not pleased....his player kind of got low bridged on a rebound and lost his footing. No foul - travel. Not a happy camper.

I find these plays are ones that get the crowd in a frenzy often.

My preference is that this be a foul on the defense for not attaining legal guarding position. But alas, as has been settled on this board just a couple of weeks ago, your travel call is correct since, as it has been pointed out, "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided the player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent" (4-37-3).
Kinda like when a player ends his dribble, lifts his pivot foot, and stands there like a flamingo before shooting, passing, or calling a timeout. Not a travel, but the entire gym will think so, yet you'll be correct. And you'll feel good about it!
Good call!

I was there, looked like the right call by Higgins.

And OP sounds like the right call also.

Agree. It was another awkward play as described here. Defender was legally on the court and the offensive rebounder lost his balance due to their positioning......

First I assume he tripped over the down player. Ie. Actually contact, not just the player tripping over this own 2 feet trying to make a fancy hop over the downed player.

If it is as a result of contact I'm gonna have to go with the foul. Tough break for the kid who tried to make the hustle play though.

I can't really argue he's established a cylinder from the souls of his feet to the ceiling that extends 6 feet horizontally across the floor. He is entitled to a spot but if he was standing and his feet were set but he was bent at the waist outside his cylinder to make contact with a shoulder or sticking his arms out and clotheslining people it would be a foul. He's way outside any sorted granted space here.

Tough call to make and everyone hates your guts but I'm going with a foul.

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.

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.

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.

1. Contact that causes a player to fall is not always a foul.
2. See one.
3. A stationary player does not need LGP.

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

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

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.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...-position.html

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.

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.

[/I]

I disagree with this statement. What if a stationary player has one foot on the OOB line and there is contact?

Well, in my opinion a stationary player may contact the OOB line and still not be responsible for contact. Others will disagree with that.

It's important to understand when LGP is needed (when a defensive player is moving when contact is made) and when it's not needed (a stationary player).

Think about this...a player is facing away from the ball handler, defending another player. He is standing still. The dribbler runs over him from behind. What do you have?

People will disagree with you becuase it was a rules change not long ago. If a player does not have both feet on the playing floor, they do not have LGP so any contact after that is on them. This is not an opinion matter, it is a rule.

I know the rule, and I think that's been the rule quite a while - a player cannot have LGP while touching OOB. However, LGP isn't required for a stationary player.

And, how about answering my other question?

Sounds to me like the player that got ran over does have legal guarding position.

My point in discussing this is that when we as officials, think of things in terms outside of the rulesbook, we don't have as deep an understanding of what we are doing. We need to strive to always think in things within the context and language of the rules.

If you want to strive to have a deep understanding and think in the context and language of the rules, tell me how the defender in my scenario - in rule book terms - established Legal Guarding Position on the player with the ball if he never faced him?

All the case plays and interps I've seen on this give the foul to the defense because there's no LGP. I don't like that it seems to give a free shot to the offense to run over a stationary defender who happens to have a foot on the line.

The fact is, though, a stationary player is entitled to his position on the floor, so we're left with one option, a player with a foot on the line is not in the spot legally. This explains how we can call a foul on a stationary player for getting run over. I just wish the case play didn't reference LGP for the reasoning.

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

You know LGP isn't required for a stationary player. There are plenty of plays we could come up with where a player never gains LGP yet can still draw a foul.

I don't want to turn this thread into a debate on the whole "foot on the line" issue, but I still don't see how an offensive player can run over a stationary defensive player...if the offensive player pushes off with his arm is it also a foul on the defender?

I'd love a clear case play from the NFHS on this. If a player touching OOB cannot be fouled, then fine. But I don't like that concept.

Because stationary has nothing to do with it. Think in terms of LGP. A player with a foot on the OOB line does not have LGP, thus any contact not deemed incidental involving that player is a foul on the defensive player. I know it sucks, I don't agree with it, I was taught as a player to put a foot on the OOB line and use it as another defender, but the rule is the rule.

I don't want to think in terms of LGP, because LGP doesn't apply to stationary players.

I want to get away from the OOB issue. It's different entirely...back to my question to you: please explain, in rulebook language (or otherwise for that matter) how a player who never faced the dribbler establishes LGP as you said.

Again, I don't like the fact that they mention LGP in the case play; it's rediculous. Either give the stationary player his spot, or declare that he did not get there legally since he's OOB. But don't claim the lack of LGP is the issue (not you, the case book).

I say this because, LGP is not required anywhere else for a stationary defender.

Could someone with books post the definition for LGP? I don't have mine with at work today. I think it would help move this conversation along. I might be not seeing the complete picture here, but I'd like to read it from the book.

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.

Yeah, what grunewar said. :)

Now, I have to leave this debate as I'm on the road the rest of the weekend. Have a good one!

Note that this has NOTHING to do with legal guarding position.

And that's why a player that never faced a dribbler can still have a legal position on the court without having a legal guarding position, and be fouled by a dribbbler who runs over that opponent.

The easiest way to call plays like this is to apply screening principles to the dribbler, as we have been directed to do in the COMMENT in case book play 10.6.7.

That statement is fundamentally wrong. You seem to not have an understanding of what LGP means and what it implies.

If and only if the foul depends on the defender having LGP does this rule matter....as it only declares the player to not have LGP while having a foot OOB. However, what it does not say is that a defender is responsible for all fouls by being OOB....only that they've lost LGP. If the foul doesn't depend on LGP, being OOB is irrelevant.

Most of the relevant cases will, however, involve a defender needing LGP as they're usually actively guarding the offensive player, but that doesn't make the rule cover the other cases.

Put simply, being OOB means no LGP. If the contact is such that LGP is needed to be legal, defensive foul, otherwise, judge the contact without regard to where the player is (OOB).

The reason it mentions LGP is because LGP status is the whole basis for the ruling. The underlying rule that was changed to cover this was the LGP rule....requiring an inbounds status to have LGP. That is it. It is entirely about LGP.

The case play in question doesn't have a stationary defender....so LGP is what it is all about.

So a player standing still, with a foot on the line, is still legal as long as he isn't moving? IOW, he can still draw a charge?

Case Play ?
 

Bob,

What case play number or interpretation are you referring to?

Thanks!

I agree, and my experience of discussing "player on the floor" cases is that officials seem to think that the ONLY way to avoid being called for a foul is having LGP.

How do we correct this bit of misinformation? I'm looking for a snippet: something on the order of, "LGP isn't relevant when the defender is stationary."

Any others (please don't include, "learn the rule, dufus!" etc.)?

So does this mean . . . hehehehe . . . that players can become ottoman like obstacles to run plays ressembling something you would see in a three stooges skit.

A1 is being defended by b1. A2 comes across the floor and takes up position on their hands and knees.

A2 attacks and b1 gets submarined by a waiting A2 . . . this isn't a foul???

I know I'm being ridiculous but that just doesn't seem right!

I can't wait to see the next press that gets broken by the ball handler hudrdling down teammates so the on the ball pressure can't stay in front. ;)

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

Ok, then I have to disagree
 

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.

And I'd agree with you. There has been commentary that this sort of play is not basketball and is not considered legal. But it doesn't come from the principles of LGP. It is viewed as a deliberate act that is also dangerous and unfair and will be called as a foul. It is completely different than a player making a legitamate play and stumbling, tripping, or falling to the floor after which their is contact.

ok
 

Here's a play for you....

A1 dribbling up the court. B1 is running beside A1 and tries to strip the ball. In the process B1 stumbles and falls in front of A1. A1 trips over B1. What do you have?

By the way, I believe the OP got the call correct. I don't believe anytime there is contact with a player on the floor that it is a foul on said player. In the OP, we have a lose ball and they ended up on the floor going for the ball. If the player didn't move then there is no foul in my mind. The travel call would be the correct call.

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.

In your play, it's pretty safe to assume B1 is still moving when A1 trips; easy foul.

Ah but Snaqwells
 

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. :rolleyes:

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.

Another Example
 

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.

A1 dribbling up the court. B1 is running beside A1 and tries to strip the ball. In the process B1 stumbles and falls in front of A1. A1 trips over B1. What do you have?

Block

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.)

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.

ok
 

Will just have to agree to disagree, again. :)

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 ...)

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.

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.

Ok
 

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

I agree
 

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.

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.

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?

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

I would use "screening" principles on this (as opposed to "guarding" principles). Thus, if A1 is moving, time and distance are required.

Even when A1 has the ball?

That makes sense to me. Since he's not facing the player he's not guarding him, but he did set a screen.

Having the ball only makes a difference if you are guarding him. To be guarding him, he'd have to have a LGP. Since he doesn't, we use the screening principle to determine if he legally acquired the position.

See the "COMMENT" in case book play 10.6.7.

I get the application, but this case play is in the reverse; a player with the ball screening an opponent without the ball (obviously). It really says nothing about a player without the ball and his back turned and screening a ball handler without LGP.

Disagree. It lays the concept out for you.

In the first sentence of the COMMENT it states that screening principles apply to the dribbler.

The last sentence of the COMMENT states "If both the dribbler and opponent are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible for contact which results if the player in front slows down or stops." Iow you have a defender who gained a legal position on the court(without having to establish LGP) in front of the dribbler and in the same path and direction of the dribbler. The defender can now slow down or stop in the dribbler's path, and if the dribbler plows into him, it's on the dribbler.

Pretty clear to me....and it sounds just like what we're discussing.

Block. That is a different play.

That is entirely different than B2, trying to stay with A2 and falling, then A1, coming along later and well after B2 fell, tripping over B2.

B2 doesn't have LGP, but B2 doesn't need it when they were there "first".

Conceptially, it could be thought of as if B2 is always allowed a spot if they give time/distance even if they don't have LGP. But, if they do have LGP, they don't need to give time/distance. (not explicit in the rules but basically what the cases and rules around these situations resemble)

I disagree here. LGP enables the privilege of verticality, not just legally being in a spot. A player without LGP doesn't get verticality.

RULE 4...
The basic components of the principle of verticality are:
<DD>ART. 1 . . . Legal guarding position must be obtained initially and movement thereafter must be legal. </DD>

A player laying on the floor may have a spot legally but it is not LGP.

As such, any contact caused while the player is moving will be a block.

NFHS Take Note ...
 

I hate it when that happens. Seriously.