Player of floor

[SAJ]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

does the player on the floor (B2) have legal guarding position?

by rule, he is entitled to that space, but if he has legal guarding position when contact is made then the only foul that can be called is a player control foul on A2.

from what you describe, I am calling a foul on B2 as he does not have LGP and his contact has caused the ball handler to lose the ball/lose his balance (iow - the defender has gained an advantage as a result of his illegal contact).

I'm calling a foul on B2 also...only because they were trying to get up and caused the contact.

JR, just wondering if it matters if the player on the floor is moving (getting up) or lying still?

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by SAJ

I'm calling a foul on B2 also...only because they were trying to get up and caused the contact.

JR, just wondering if it matters if the player on the floor is moving (getting up) or lying still?

IMO you have to go get this foul...I agree with SAJ

[Anchor]

Incidental contact. No legal guarding position so unlikely to be a player control foul. Definitely entitled to the spot as he got there first and is not extending his space to create contact.

Just like the slashing driver that careens off the side of a couple set players on the way to the hoop who may wind up on his butt, no foul on the defense for simply occupying a spot, and player control unlikely.

The contact created a travel? Tough luck--that may teach him to stay in his own space. Send the ball the other way and tell the coach to sit down and shut up (nicely and properly, of course )

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by SAJ

I'm calling a foul on B2 also...only because they were trying to get up and caused the contact.

JR, just wondering if it matters if the player on the floor is moving (getting up) or lying still?

I'm not JR, but the answer is: it depends.

If all he does is get up, presumably he's still simply occupying his spot on the floor. In that case, by NF rules he's still legal, and should not be called for a foul. Such movement would be covered by the principle of verticality.

If his attempt to get up involves moving an arm or leg off his spot on the floor such that it causes contact that puts an opponent at a disadvantage, then that should be called a foul.

[riden]

So, is this scenario a foul in FIBA?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm not JR, but the answer is: it depends.

If all he does is get up, presumably he's still simply occupying his spot on the floor. In that case, by NF rules he's still legal, and should not be called for a foul. Such movement would be covered by the principle of verticality.

If his attempt to get up involves moving an arm or leg off his spot on the floor such that it causes contact that puts an opponent at a disadvantage, then that should be called a foul.

I am JR and I agree.

That case play cited in the old thread gave us that direction that Mike summed up above- "Unless B1 made an effort to trip up or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court, even though if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down."

So, it depends.

[Gargil]

Does the principle of verticality apply if the player does not have LGP.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Gargil

Does the principle of verticality apply if the player does not have LGP.

No, but it doens't have to if the player isn't airborne, IMO.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Gargil

Does the principle of verticality apply if the player does not have LGP.

Some would say yes, based on the first line of the definition: "Verticality applies to a legal position." (Notice it does not say legal guarding position.) Having a spot on the floor is a legal position, as long as that player got to that spot first. Others would argue no, based on 4-45-1: "Legal guarding position must be obtained initially..." Because of those differences, there is a disagreement as to whether a player on the floor as a right to the space directly above them.

There's also the issue of whether this would be considered incidental contact. A foul is, of course, contact that hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements. But, is going over an opponent considered a "normal offensive movement"? Could it also be argued getting up off the floor is a "normal defensive movement"?

That's why I'm in the same camp as JR as to whether it's a foul in the OP - it depends. It's not an automatic foul on B2 simply because they're on the floor, or trying to get up. We have to judge if there is some intent on B2 to trip or hold A2, or if, in fact, A2 did travel trying to avoid B2.

[Gargil]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Some would say yes, based on the first line of the definition: "Verticality applies to a legal position." (Notice it does not say legal guarding position.) Having a spot on the floor is a legal position, as long as that player got to that spot first. Others would argue no, based on 4-45-1: "Legal guarding position must be obtained initially..." Because of those differences, there is a disagreement as to whether a player on the floor as a right to the space directly above them.

There's also the issue of whether this would be considered incidental contact. A foul is, of course, contact that hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements. But, is going over an opponent considered a "normal offensive movement"? Could it also be argued getting up off the floor is a "normal defensive movement"?

That's why I'm in the same camp as JR as to whether it's a foul in the OP - it depends. It's not an automatic foul on B2 simply because they're on the floor, or trying to get up. We have to judge if there is some intent on B2 to trip or hold A2, or if, in fact, A2 did travel trying to avoid B2.

This makes sense to me.