On The Floor Is The Appropriate Description Here ...

[BillyMac]

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?

[bob jenkins]

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

[ballgame99]

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

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

Doesn't matter.

[Adam]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Remember, this is IAABO, not the NFHS.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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)

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

[fullor30]

What do you have?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Comments?

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.