On The Floor Is The Appropriate Description Here ...
 

White 15 is in a prone position on the floor after falling. Before he attempts to stand up, without moving his arms, or legs, or without attempting to roll over, Red 22 contacts the prone White 15, and Red 22 trips, and falls to the floor. Note that I said he trips, not that White 15 tripped him.

NFHS rules. What's the call?

Is the interpretation any different in NCAA rules? I know that this has been discussed on the Forum before, but I wanted a fresh look at the play. I discussed this with a highly regarded colleague last night who works both high school, and college games. He usually does a great job at differentiating the two rule sets, but I thought that there were differing interpretations for this play depending on which rule set in being used.

Comments? Citations?

Yes, it's different. Yes, it's been discussed. A "fresh look" won't change that. Try the search function.

#22 has the ball? or is off-ball?

Doesn't matter.

A fresh look might, but this isn't a fresh look.

All the things from the thread fullor linked above. And the NCAA rule is still as much better than the NFHS rule as it was then.:)

I Don't Feel Refreshed ...
 

I was hoping that someone could come up with the NFHS case play, or the article from Referee Magazine, as discussed in the link that fullor30 kindly provided. I can't find the case play in the NFHS casebook, and I don't subscribe to Referee Magazine.

The NFHS removed that Case Play several years ago without comment.
Jurassic cited it on this forum before though. So if you search with his username, you may find it.

Did You Know That Stegosaurus Lived In The Jurassic Period ???
 

Good idea. Thanks Nevadaref. A Forum search yielded no results. I did a Google search and learned a lot about the dinosaurs of the Jurassic Period, but I did find this:

10.6.1 SITUATION E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down. (7-4-1, 2)

4-23-1
Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

Isn't This An Important Interpretation ???
 

This casebook play last appeared in the 2004-05 NFHS casebook. Anybody know why is was removed in 2005-06?

how many times do players fall and then just lay there? they're typically trying to protect themselves (cover up), or moving arms and legs, or attempting to get up. so, if they're doing any of these is it still a non-foul?

Depends. If they were on their feet and moving an equivalent amount, would you have a foul or a train-wreck (incidental contact)?

IAABO, Not Necessarily NFHS ???
 

I asked my local interpreter about this play. Here's what he discovered, and note that these are IAABO interpretations, not NFHS interpretations:

"The fact that such casebook play was removed in 2005 edition should be a message to you that that "interpretation" in 2004 was incorrect and no longer applies. This is not about NCAA vs. NFHS as they have same interpretation. The 2004 casebook rule reference is also incorrect. It should have been 4.7.1 and 2. Just to be certain, I checked with the IAABO office and here is the response I received:

"B-1 is not in legal guarding position. Is it legal for a player to fall to the floor (provided he/she was not holding the ball) or to lay on the floor? Yes. However, it is not a legal position when contact, beyond incidental to the play, occurs. Ruling for the situation which you describe is a foul on B-1. Rule Reference 4.23.1.""

So you don't have to look them up:

4-7-1: Blocking is illegal personal contact which impedes the progress of
an opponent with or without the ball.

4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an
offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard
and opponent, but the maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded. Every player is
entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first
without illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder,
hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position
if contact occurs.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Is Prone On The Floor A "Normal Position" ???
 

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.

This seems like a local interpreter's opinion rather than an official IAABO statement.. Seems to me if they thought the interpretation was wrong, the would have said so when they removed it.

And his reliance on LGP for a stationary player doesn't speak inspire confidence in his opinion.

An International Opinion, It's Not Your Dad's United Nations Anymore ...
 

Remember, this is IAABO, not the NFHS, so be careful using the pronoun, "they". The NFHS removed it, not IAABO.

This is not my local interpreter's opinion, it's the opinion of the IAABO "International" office. He went all the way up the ladder to the top. I would love to get an opinion from someone in authority at the NFHS.

If I'm going to charge a foul on this play, and I guess that I'm going to have to from now on because Connecticut is a 100% IAABO state, then I'm going with 10-6-1 rather than 4-23-1.

Fortunately, we don't have to give a rule reference when reporting fouls. When I get this word through my local IAABO association, I'll call it that way. In the meantime, the reasoning given for this ruling doesn't make any sense.

The Strange Case Of The Disappearing Caseplay ...
 

I would love to get your local interpreter's opinion on this, especially regarding why the caseplay disappeared in 2005. In any case, don't hold your breath waiting from word from you local association without an an inquiry. If IAABO hasn't commented since 2005, they won't comment now, without a question from a member, as I did, this past week.

Again, I would love to hear from the NFHS regarding this play. Maybe Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. can get in touch with one of his "contacts" at the NFHS and can get us an opinion. Where is he? He's always underfoot, and getting in the way, until you need him.

Better would be a general statement either that "case plays remain in effect until a contrary ruling come sout, even of the play is removed from the books: or "case plays become null and void once they are removed from the book."

Of course, we've been asking this question since about the time Al Gore invented the interwebs.

But even if a case play were to become null and void when removed, it wouldn't give any indication as to the desired ruling....imagine the arguments about what it really means when trying to interpret a blank page.