Confused In Connecticut (NFHS) ...

[rwest]

Originally Posted by BEAREF

Has the player that is lying on the floor established legal guarding position?

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.

[gslefeb]

On The Floor Is The Appropriate Description Here ...

[jeremy341a]

If this is a foul should Coachs then be teaching their players that after a player ends on the floor to try to run past them and "trip"?

Seems to me that a player on the floor is entitled to that spot but I am not sure.

[billyu2]

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.

From what I remember the issue is not one of LGP. A player who is down on the floor is still entitled to that spot. (high school not NCAA) If the player with the ball falls over the down player we would most likely have a travel. If the down player starts to roll, get up, raises an arm or leg and this causes the contact then it is a block. Instances not involving the ball most likely are incidental.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by billyu2

From what I remember the issue is not one of LGP. A player who is down on the floor is still entitled to that spot. (high school not NCAA) If the player with the ball falls over the down player we would most likely have a travel. If the down player starts to roll, get up, raises an arm or leg and this causes the contact then it is a block. Instances not involving the ball most likely are incidental.

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)

[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 billyu2

From what I remember the issue is not one of LGP. A player who is down on the floor is still entitled to that spot. (high school not NCAA) If the player with the ball falls over the down player we would most likely have a travel. If the down player starts to roll, get up, raises an arm or leg and this causes the contact then it is a block. Instances not involving the ball most likely are incidental.

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.

[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?

[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.