Flop

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Welpe

What do you think then is the purpose of the phrase in the ruling 10.6.1 C ruling:

"However, if B1 moves into the path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1."

And if moving INTO the path is irrelevant, why did they explicitly include it as one of the two requirements for this to be a foul on B1? If their intent was to penalize B1 for changing positions at all while A1 is airborne, wouldn't they have written it as

"However, if B1 changes position after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1."

10.6.1 A does reference the exact rule but it never specifically says that any movement to a new position by B1 is a foul on B1. In fact, it is explaining what is a foul on A1. Hence why I said 10.6.1 C is more specific and more applicable to this now pulverized equine masquerading as a play.

I agree the wording may not fully satisfy either one of us, but at least 10.6.1 Sit A uses the same wording as the rule - "moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne". The wording 10.6.1(c) means the same thing - moving into the path is the same as moving from one spot to another - while the wording in 10.6.1 Sit A cannot always be the same - moving from one spot to another is not always the same as moving into the path.

I agree, it may be time to bury the poor equine.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Nope...sent them all to that jerk M&M Guy.

Think he will share any of them with you?

Depends on the type of cookies. My generosity is only exceeded by my selfishness.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I agree, it may be time to bury the poor equine.

So it seems. Maybe the NFHS will issue an interpretation one day that has one of us gnashing our teeth and the other saying "See I told you so!"

Now fork over the thin mints and nobody gets hurt.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Now fork over the thin mints and nobody gets hurt.

Oh no way...

I didn't send him the thin mints. Those stay right here with me.

I sent him those weird things with the graham cracker base and the marshmallow middle all covered with chocolate. He can have those.

[just another ref]

To summarize: B1 is jogging up the court to take his defensive position, unaware of what is going on behind him. Dribbler A1, moving rapidly, approaches from behind. As both players continue in the same path, A1 jumps to release a pass, then lands on B1. Ruling: blocking foul on B1, because he moved to a new position while A1 was airborne.

[Raymond]

It has happened to all of us. B1 flops to the floor without contact and A1 lands hitting some part of B1's body.

Still waiting for someone to say they have called a foul on A1 for landing on B1.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

To summarize: B1 is jogging up the court to take his defensive position, unaware of what is going on behind him. Dribbler A1, moving rapidly, approaches from behind. As both players continue in the same path, A1 jumps to release a pass, then lands on B1. Ruling: blocking foul on B1, because he moved to a new position while A1 was airborne.

Nope, it doesn't have to be a blocking foul; it could be incidental contact. But, if there's a foul, by rule, B1 moved to a different spot while A1 was airborne, so it would be a foul on B1. I agree, it doesn't feel right. And if you called the foul on A1, no one would argue. But that's not what the rule says.

A1, while dribbling, slightly mis-handles the dribble, and it bounces up just over shoulder height, while A1 keeps their hand on top of the ball. It doesn't feel right to let it go. If you called a carry, no one would argue. But that's not what the rule says.

A1, while dribbling up the floor, loses control of the dribble, and takes several steps while trying to regain control. It doesn't feel right to let it go. If you called a travel, no one would argue. But that's not what the rule says.

A1 drives into the lane and there is contact with B1. The T blows their whistle and signals a blocking foul, while the L blows their whistle and signals a PC foul. It doesn't seem right that 2 fouls have to be charged on one play. And if the officials got together and came out with one call, hardly anyone would argue that 2 fouls have to be charged on that play. But that's not what the rule says.

To summarize: Just because a ruling doesn't feel right on a play, doesn't mean we are to ignore the rule.

I've got another glue recipie I need to try.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It has happened to all of us. B1 flops to the floor without contact and A1 lands hitting some part of B1's body.

I haven't but I'm not work at a level yet where I'm as likely to see this.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

To summarize: Just because a ruling doesn't feel right on a play, doesn't mean we are to ignore the rule.

Ignoring rules is one thing but if one feels they are applying the rule correctly...

I think the Elmer's truck is coming around the corner.

[Scrapper1]

May I please just take a moment to say how happy and proud I am that there have been 145+ posts since I went public with my "minority opinion"?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

May I please just take a moment to say how happy and proud I am that there have been 145+ posts since I went public with my "minority opinion"?

Yes you may.

Now, shut up.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Nope, it doesn't have to be a blocking foul; it could be incidental contact. But, if there's a foul, by rule, B1 moved to a different spot while A1 was airborne, so it would be a foul on B1. I agree, it doesn't feel right. And if you called the foul on A1, no one would argue. But that's not what the rule says.

Actually, it is what the rule says.

10.6.7 Comment: When both the dribbler and the opponent are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible for contact which results if the player in front slows down or stops.

So you think if, in this situation, B1 slows down in front of A1, all A1 has to do is become airborne and the foul is on B1?

[Welpe]

Scrappy gets an agitator medal me thinks.

Good discussion all, I for one, appreciate it.

[Camron Rust]

One fundamental point....if the rule doesn't say you can't do it, then it is legal. The only thing the rule (and related cases) prohibits is moving into the path. It places no further restrictions on the defender. The only way you get to that is to add a stipulation where there is none. But under the basic principle of legal unless prohibited, you can't do that.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Actually, it is what the rule says.

10.6.7 Comment: When both the dribbler and the opponent are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible for contact which results if the player in front slows down or stops.

So you think if, in this situation, B1 slows down in front of A1, all A1 has to do is become airborne and the foul is on B1?

A dribbler and an airborne player are treated differently in the rules, as per the separation within the guarding rules; that's why this comment doesn't apply.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

A dribbler and an airborne player are treated differently in the rules, as per the separation within the guarding rules; that's why this comment doesn't apply.

poppycock

So, word of advice to any dribbler, if you see you're about to run over the defender and can't stop, just launch yourself at him and hope that he flinches in any direction, and the foul can't be on you.