Confused In Connecticut (NFHS) ...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

I believe there was an official interp that came out years ago. I can't find it but the official interp is that the prone player does have LGP. I disagree with their logic but it is what it is. I also believe that the interp gave some indication that time was a factor. In other words the prone player couldn't stay there forever. The interp may have used the phrase "temporarily" or something to that effect. When I read it it gave me the idea that the player was granted LGP temporarily while on the floor but that they need to make an effort to get up in a somewhat quick fashion. I know I'm being somewhat vague but I'm going on memory. I'll see if I can't find it.

No, he doesn't have LGP. So if he's moving at contact, it's likely a blocking foul. If he's not moving, he is merely occupying a spot to which he's entitled.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Correct. It has absolutely nothing to do with LGP. The player doesn't have LGP and doesn't need LGP. It is based on the fact that player is a stationary and in the spot first. If they move and cause contact, they have fouled for that very reason...they don't have LGP....but if they don't move, they don't need it.

Camron, can I get a commission for using my response as an "ad" to support your argument in a certain-other thread?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Opponent trips over the prone player.

Originally Posted by rwest

I can't find it but the official interp is that the prone player does have LGP.

For clarity's sake, prone means "face down." I belive these interpretations apply to one who is prone or supine (face up).

[icallfouls]

I think part of the ruling includes those situations when A1 with possession of the ball is laying on the floor (loose ball situation or otherwise) and then B2 dives/falls/lands on A1 to get the ball. B2 is responsible for the contact.

However, if A1 without the ball falls to the floor and B2 trips over A1, A1 is responsible for the contact as they do not have LGP. What if B2 just stepped on A1 on purpose?

[michblue]

We had a similar type question on our state rules exam last year and the correct answer was a foul on the defender in the paint (ie block: for not having legal guarding position, or whatever infraction the players committed ie push, hold, trip, etc)

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's also how I remember it -- and the case was removed without comment 6 years ago (or so).

Not that this should matter (as a general statement), but you'll probably get less grief from either coach calling this a foul than calling it a travel (assuming that the player with the ball has "almost no time" to avoid the contact)

Probably you're right; but if the foul happens to be the kid's 4th or 5th of the game the kid is probably taken out temporarily or disqualified in exchange for my getting less grief.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

I think part of the ruling includes those situations when A1 with possession of the ball is laying on the floor (loose ball situation or otherwise) and then B2 dives/falls/lands on A1 to get the ball. B2 is responsible for the contact.

However, if A1 without the ball falls to the floor and B2 trips over A1, A1 is responsible for the contact as they do not have LGP. What if B2 just stepped on A1 on purpose?

You'd be correct in an NCAA game and incorrect in a NFHS game.