Confused In Connecticut (NFHS) ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In the NCAA a player lying prone on the floor is responsible for contact with a ball handler.

Can the NFHS view on this be discussed, i.e., player trips and is lying, stationary, on the floor. Opponent trips over the prone player. If the "tripped" player is put at a disadvantage, is there a foul?

[gslefeb]

In high school, this is a blocking foul on the person lying on the floor. The issue was discussed in our refresher meeting last night.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

In high school, this is a blocking foul on the person lying on the floor. The issue was discussed in our refresher meeting last night.

...do you think that is the interp for all High School locations across the nation?

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

In high school, this is a blocking foul on the person lying on the floor. The issue was discussed in our refresher meeting last night.

Are you sure? According to NFHS ruling? Which rule? ... maybe a local interp.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

In high school, this is a blocking foul on the person lying on the floor. The issue was discussed in our refresher meeting last night.

Did NFHS change (or remove) the case play that said this was legal?

[gslefeb]

Good Points...

In my local interp (refresher test) meeting, our state interpreter said it was a foul on the person lying on the floor.

disclaimer: this may / may not apply to all states or all interps of this play.

[Raymond]

This is a thread where Jurassic is needed. He spoke on this subject many times

[BEAREF]

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

[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)

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

Good Points...

In my local interp (refresher test) meeting, our state interpreter said it was a foul on the person lying on the floor.

disclaimer: this may / may not apply to all states or all interps of this play.

Your local interpreter is ruling directly opposite of what the NFHS has said regarding this play.