What do you have?

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

[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.

[APG]

The play in question:



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

[stiffler3492]

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

[APG]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

The play in question:

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

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