What do you have?
 

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?

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

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.

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

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. :confused:

B1 is still entitled to his space...
 

...even though he's on the floor. A1 has traveled.

THere is (or was) a specific case play on FED where B1's position is legal, andin NCAA where the position is not.

I think this play was in RefMag recently (this month?) and they had the position as legal in both.

Not in NCAA.

imho, Mike Kitts got this play wrong. Aaron Craft (OSU playing laying on the floor) should have been called for a foul. Instead, Kitts called traveling. I'm sure John Adams cringed when he saw this play - a "big time" official not calling one of the NCAA's "absolutes" on national TV. ouch babe!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I thought the contact occurred before he was on the ground. In any case, I agree with a foul on B here.

In other news, how about those dookies? :D

I"ll weigh in:
 

Travel. Must have looked like something else courtside, floor level, but from this video angle OSU player thinks he sees a steal but goes through the Dookie's legs to get there. I don't see any LGP established or incidental contact.

How do you have a travel if you stated all that?

You are right, I'm the bonehead
 

I thought I had typed NO travel. Oh well, guess that's what a couple hours of sleep will get you.

Reading Is Fundamental ...
 

I'm glad that I don't read Referee Magazine. I'll stick to National Geographic, and Sports Illustrated.