+1

Exactly right. Every act described in 10-6-1 refers to some movement by the defender. A player lying motionless on the floor cannot possibly initiate contact, and therefore cannot initiate illegal contact. It's just not a foul.

Maybe not in the OP but....
 

If A1 jumps for a rebound and comes straight down and lands on a player lying on the floor it most definitely is a foul because of the Principle of Verticality. I am entitled to my spot on the floor from the floor to the ceiling. If I jump for a rebound I am entitled to return to the floor unimpeded by the defense. In this situation a player lying on the floor is not protected from being called for a foul.

True, but if A1 jumps, and B1 never moves, you have to assume that if A1 lands on B1 he didn't come straight down.

If the player was on the ground before you jumped, then you jumped into his space. PC foul.

If you jumped straight up and the player "rolled" underneath you, then it's a foul on theother player. (Or, even if you didn't jump straight up, if he fell in your landing space and you landed on him it w(c)ould be a foul on him.)

I think you missed the part in red, from the original post.

maybe
 

It depends on how the play develops. If B1 goes to the floor after A1 jumps but before he comes down, B1 doesn't have to move while on the floor for a foul to be called on B1. A1 is entitled to return to his spot on the floor. PERIOD! Regardless of what B1 does or does not do. He could be lying perfectly still and it would still be a foul on B1. He can't under any circumstance occupy A1's spot on the floor. No part of his body can be in A1's spot.

Foul on B1 every time!

I guess that's what I meant and took a really bad, long, way to get there. In your example I don't see advantage/disadvantage (i.e., player bounces off player boxing out). With a player falling over another player on the court I do (i.e., player falling while making move to shoot after securing a rebound). Would the rebounding player have tripped over the opposing player if they had been standing instead? Based on the interps you all are posting it would appear not to matter so I'm going to have to rethink this one, but I'm still having a hard time getting there.

Just so you know, one of the great expressions I've heard is that "ugly isn't always wrong and pretty isn't alway right." I have no issue with bodies colliding in a small space, just start questioning when one body is the cause of another one doing something it didn't intend to do (i.e., fall down).

Exactly. If B1 is lying on the floor before A1 goes airborne, there is no way this is a foul on B1. It would be the same as if A1 goes airborne and then lands on a standing player who was in that spot before A1 went airborne.

However, if B1 falls to the floor after A1 goes airborne and is lying in A1's "landing spot" when A1 comes down, that is a foul on B1. B1 is, after all, only entitled to his spot on the floor "provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent." And he did not meet that requirement.

No I didn't
 

I think you missed the title of my post. It said "Maybe not in the OP but". I was responding to another post. I was responding to this blanket statement:

"A player lying motionless on the floor cannot possibly initiate contact, and therefore cannot initiate illegal contact. It's just not a foul. "

This is not true in all cases. My post was meant to bring that out.

My mistake. Carry on, nothing to see here. :o

no problem! made that mistake myself before! :)

It all goes back to the rule already cited. You have to determine whether the player on the floor had a legal position or not. It's that simple. No legal position by B1 = foul on B1 or no call. Legal position by B1 = foul on A1 or no call.

Y'all are trying to make this more difficult that it really is imo.

True, but in this scenario, it doesn't matter if A1 jumps straight up and down or not.

Moral of the story...don't put meaningful content in your subject (without also putting it in the body). I'm guessing that few people read that part.

Then you don't read Billy Mac's Posts!
 

See the title. It says it all. :)