Yes -- that's the one. FED has a similar play with the opposite ruling.

Good point, as is Snaq's.

I suppose a better way for me to say it is, if contact causes a travel, and it's contact that I'd otherwise rule as incidental, I can't anymore, because the contact has caused a violation. Someone on the floor causing someone to travel is a foul, in my mind.

I guess I'm just a bigger believer in the college application. In the meantime, though, that hardly matters.

Contact determined to be incidental isn't necessarily so because it didn't cause the opponent a disadvantage. Sometimes, contact is simply legal. In this case (NFHS), this contact is defined to be legal because the player had a legal position on the court and was not moving at the time of contact.

Note that a legal position on the court is NOT the same as legal guarding position. There are many instances of a player having a legal potion while not having legal guarding position. The only things LGP add is the ability to be moving/jumping/verticality at the time of contact.

Think of contact with a hand which is in contact with the ball.....it is also incidental by rule, not because it didn't affect the play.

For NFHS, does anyone have a difference of opinion if the dribbler knows the kid is back there lying on the floor? If he glances--and you SEE him look--at the kid behind him and he knows he's there, do you still give him the foul, or do you go with the travel?

I guess I'm sort of asking if a kid tells you first he's going to foul do you still call the foul just because the kid "knew" he was about to do something wrong, but I'm sensing a different type of sitch here...

As was previously said, for NFHS, it is not a foul in any case if the player lying on the floor was "there" and stationary.

I think your question is more applicable to NCAA.

The play in question:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YVyir4ggrW8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'd have a hard time calling travel under NFHS or NCAA rules.

I might have a pushing foul before the Duke player trips even.

Quite honestly, I don't see the push that you're referring to.

Travelling would be impossible, anyway, because he was dribbling on the way down. Still, he was tripped. Easy foul.

After he deflects the ball away, it looks like B1 tries to go through the back of A1 in his efforts to get the ball.

Sorry, I read your statement to mean you had a foul on the Duke player for pushing.

No problem

I'd have a hard time not calling a foul on this play. B1 went into A1's legs.

That too...I think either the lead or trail should have come in with this call. And if they weren't going to call that contact, I'm not even sure A1 traveled as he was dribbling the ball and it looked like he gathered the ball when he was on the floor.

Under NFHS rules, I'd have a block on the B player. I would not say that is being motionless on the ground.