What do you have?

[fiasco]

Defensive player B1 falls to the floor. A1, while dribbling, backs up and trips over B1, who is still on the floor. A1 holds the ball and falls to the floor.

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Defensive player B1 falls to the floor. A1, while dribbling, backs up and trips over B1, who is still on the floor. A1 holds the ball and falls to the floor.

I'm leaning toward traveling. B1 is there legally, right? As long as A1 has a chance to avoid the contact, wouldn't it be traveling?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Defensive player B1 falls to the floor. A1, while dribbling, backs up and trips over B1, who is still on the floor. A1 holds the ball and falls to the floor.

Are you reading the same blog I am? This just came up recently. . .

My understanding is that the play is a traveling violation in NFHS and a blocking foul on B1 in NCAA.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Are you reading the same blog I am? This just came up recently. . .

My understanding is that the play is a traveling violation in NFHS and a blocking foul on B1 in NCAA.

Actually, it was a play in the Duke/OSU game earlier tonight. Happened about five feet in from of Mike Kitts. He called travel. I'm just wondering what the rules justification is for a travel rather than a block.

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Actually, it was a play in the Duke/OSU game earlier tonight. Happened about five feet in from of Mike Kitts. He called travel. I'm just wondering what the rules justification is for a travel rather than a block.

I thought that might be what you were getting at. I was surprised there wasn't a foul on that play.

[RSturgell]

If I'm thinking of the correct play involving Craft being the player on the floor, I was surprised it wasnt a foul on Craft as well. The play looked to me like the defensive player was trying to reach up and around the offensive player from behind and on the floor and the offensive player tripped over him.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Are you reading the same blog I am? This just came up recently. . .

My understanding is that the play is a traveling violation in NFHS and a blocking foul on B1 in NCAA.

Concur. I had this play in a college game 3 years ago. I called a travel but didn't feel good about the call so I looked it up and discovered that I should have called a blocking foul.

[bainsey]

I must confess that I'm struggling with a travel call here.

Here's my rationale: If contact causes a travel, I will have a foul, unless the defender had LGP. (That is, ball handler runs into defender, who's guarding legally.) I don't see how anyone on the floor could have LGP. Nobody intends to guard from down there.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I must confess that I'm struggling with a travel call here.

Here's my rationale: If contact causes a travel, I will have a foul, unless the defender had LGP. (That is, ball handler runs into defender, who's guarding legally.) I don't see how anyone on the floor could have LGP. Nobody intends to guard from down there.

It's simple, a stationary player doesn't need LGP. Thus no foul in HS if he's not moving. College considers it an illegal position, thus a foul.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I must confess that I'm struggling with a travel call here.

Here's my rationale: If contact causes a travel, I will have a foul, unless the defender had LGP. (That is, ball handler runs into defender, who's guarding legally.) I don't see how anyone on the floor could have LGP. Nobody intends to guard from down there.

LGP has nothing to do with it. It is possible for a player to not have LGP and be innocent of contact between himself and a player in control of the ball. Each player is still entitled to his space on the floor and there is no provision requiring that player to be on his feet.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Welpe

LGP has nothing to do with it. It is possible for a player to not have LGP and be innocent of contact between himself and a player in control of the ball. Each player is still entitled to his space on the floor and there is no provision requiring that player to be on his feet.

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.

[KCRC]

I saw this play last night. I've been lurking here too long, because my first thought was, that's a foul in NCAA according to the esteemed members of the forum.

Is this the relevant case book play?

A.R. 110. B1 slips to the floor in the free-throw lane. A1 (with his/her back
to B1, who is prone) receives a pass, turns and, in his or her attempt
to drive to the basket, trips and falls over B1.
RULING: Foul on B1, who is not in a legal guarding position.
(Rule 4-35.4.a)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by KCRC

I saw this play last night. I've been lurking here too long, because my first thought was, that's a foul in NCAA according to the esteemed members of the forum.

Is this the relevant case book play?

A.R. 110. B1 slips to the floor in the free-throw lane. A1 (with his/her back
to B1, who is prone) receives a pass, turns and, in his or her attempt
to drive to the basket, trips and falls over B1.
RULING: Foul on B1, who is not in a legal guarding position.
(Rule 4-35.4.a)

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

[Danvrapp]

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...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Danvrapp

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.