Player Laying on the Floor
 

Had a situation last night where B1 jumps to block a shot and he falls to the ground in the lane. Ball bounces off the rim and A2 grabs the rebounds and attempts to step to his left to shoot and falls over B1 who is still on the ground. B1 made no attempt to stop A2 or contact him.

NFHS rules. Do we have a call here? If so what is the correct call? Does LGP have a place here?

Does it matter if B2 is:
a) Laying on his back?
b) On his knees trying to get up?

I'm sure we talked over this type of scenario before but apparently I am horrible at SEARCHES.

Thanks guys!

In NFHS, every player is entitled to his/her position on the court, provided s/he got there legally -- even if that position is lying down. In NCAA, a player lying on the floor does NOT have a legal position.

Was A2 still holding the ball when he fell to the floor?

@ Scrap......that was my understanding also.

@PG Ref......let's ignore the potential travel (if that's what you are getting at)....I was really trying to focus on if we had a foul or not. :D (From what I recall A2 was in the act of shooting when he fell over B1)

When did B1 establish legal guarding position on the A player that got the rebound and shot the ball? To obtain legal: must have both feet touching the playing court and facing the opponent...I will call this a foul every single time.

B1 hand established legal guarding positon on A1 not A2...Foul on B1

Under NFHS rules, it is not relevant unless B1 was either jumping or moving. A stationary defender doesn't need LGP. LGP only grants the defender the right to be moving at the time of contact.

If you call this foul (B1 laying on the floor) every single time in HS, you will call it wrong every single time.

If B1 is rising and contacts A* while rising, that would be a foul as they are moving but don't have LGP.

B1 was not guarding anyone at the time. What illegal contact did B1 initiate that warrants a foul?

The guy tripped over another guy. Clumsy is not a foul.

+1

This is exactly how to think about LGP, which is always raised in this scenario but is a red herring.

I guess I need help with this one. Let's start with 4-23-2a & b:

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.

Please help me understand how a player lying on the floor obtained legal guarding position. If your point is that LGP doesn't apply, how do you jibe the resulting fall of A2 with 10-6-1:

A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

Is lying on the floor considered a "normal position?"

The original posting didn't indicate if B1 had obtaining legal guarding position before falling after the block attempt. That's one scenario that I might see LGP applying, but I don't think that was the point of the post.

This was a point of emphasis for our association this year and was a question on our test if I recall correctly. The conclusion reached is that this is a foul on B1.

The player on the floor did not extend arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s), knee(s), or bend his/her body. Nor did he use rough tactics. He was just a bump on a log.

IIRC, the justification for this interp was this: "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."

The takeaway was that "Every player is entitled to a spot on the floor, even if that spot is, temporarily, lying on the floor".

Rufus, forget legal guarding position. It's got dick-all to do with the call. Every player on the court is entitled to a legal position on the court. It says that specifically in the preamble of rule 4-23..."Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.". That statement includes a player laying on the court.

If a player ran into the back of another player blocking out on a rebound, would you call the foul on the player blocking out because they didn't establish a legal guarding position?

Use the same concept for players laying on the floor.

And you will be wrong, IMO. LGP isn't required for a stationary player.

+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. :)

Ummmmm. Just sayin'. . .

Aren't you quite the agitator.

Glad you agree. I think I'd think less of you otherwise ;)