Trip on a rebound

[BktBallRef]

10.6.1 (E) has appeared in previous Case Books. One of those plays that appears, disappears, reappears. Still valid though, has nothing has changed with the NF rule interp.

[BillyMac]

Caseplays appear, and then disappear, usually due to a rule change, or a lack of space in the casebook. I do not believe that there has been a rule change that changes the interpretation of the caseplay in question. Please copy and paste the caseplay, and send it to Mr. Webb. I'm sure that many of us would be very interested to hear his reasoning behind his interpretation, especially in regard to the previously published caseplay.

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)

[maven]

Are we sure we have the right case number? There is no such case in the books for 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, or 2012-13.

Just where is that case from?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ColeTops25

I've learned many things reading posts on this forum. This thread caught my attention because I have been trained to believe that a player laying on the floor does not have LGP. My Interpreter states this is accurate.

I applaud you for coming here to try to learn. You appear to only be listening to PART of what is said to you in this thread. You're missing the important part. You've been told over and over that LGP is NOT required here. You (and your interpreter) are actually correct that laying on the floor is not LGP. Problem is - LGP is irrelevant here. Not sure how many times that needs to be said for it to sink in, but add me to the choir.

[ColeTops25]

As recommended, I copied and pasted the situation to Mr. Webb. His opinion has not changed. My guess is that rule interpretations change, and this is no exception. I have no idea what year that interpretation was written; it could have been from 1980 for all I know.

Mr. Webb sits on the NFHS Rules Committee. He is the Head Interpreter for IAABO. I am an IAABO official. In essence, my boss says this is the interpretation, therefore I will rule that situation as a block. You will tell me I'm wrong. That's fine. My boss tells me I'm right. When the rubber meets the road, I'm justified to make the ruling based on my training from IAABO.

[Tio]

Honestly, I am not a fan of the caseplay as written. I prefer the NCAA ruling. But some clarification/rationale would be great on the ruling (why NFHS rules committee won't change his mind).

[Adam]

You do realize LGP has nothing to do with a stationary player, right?

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So I'll ask a second time:

Billy Mac,

Through a guy that knows a guy sorta thing, we have been going round and round on a discussion (see 0 and 00 post) and he quotes Mr. Webb. It appears that Mr. Webb also doesn't like the 2008/09 interp ruling regarding that 0 and 00 situation. My question to this guy (not Mr. Webb) is should even a guy as esteemed as Mr. Webb disagree with an interp?

[Raymond]

Personally, I don't like the NFHS case play myself. The defender now takes 4-5 times more area on the court than a natural defensive stance would take up.

[maven]

Originally Posted by Adam

You do realize LGP has nothing to do with a stationary player, right?

I don't think anyone (other than Webb) is disputing the rule. One guy says he's going with his interpreter's ruling, and another is stating his preference for the NCAA rule. It's hard to argue with either approach.

It would not be difficult for NFHS to move in the direction of NCAA on this particular issue: simply revise the rule 4 definition of "spot on the floor" so that it encompassed a normal stance with the player's feet within the body's frame. A player lying on the floor would then not be entitled to that spot on the floor and be liable for a foul.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by maven

I don't think anyone (other than Webb) is disputing the rule. One guy says he's going with his interpreter's ruling, and another is stating his preference for the NCAA rule. It's hard to argue with either approach.

It would not be difficult for NFHS to move in the direction of NCAA on this particular issue: simply revise the rule 4 definition of "spot on the floor" so that it encompassed a normal stance with the player's feet within the body's frame. A player lying on the floor would then not be entitled to that spot on the floor and be liable for a foul.

Raven,

Should ANYONE be disputing an NFHS interp especially someone as esteemed as Mr. Webb. Or, anybody that has a similar position as Mr. Webb?

Doesn't the rulesbook, casebooks and interps have language preceding their rulings that NFHS is the only recognized body authorized to do so?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Raven,

Should ANYONE be disputing an NFHS interp especially someone as esteemed as Mr. Webb. Or, anybody that has a similar position as Mr. Webb?

Doesn't the rulesbook, casebooks and interps have language preceding their rulings that NFHS is the only recognized body authorized to do so?

Problem being is that case play is not currently in the book. And is there an official archive of past interps? And if an interp is rescinded is that annotated anywhere?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Problem being is that case play is not currently in the book. And is there an official archive of past interps? And if an interp is rescinded is that annotated anywhere?

I agree they need to be clear about what it means when they drop a case play.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Problem being is that case play is not currently in the book. And is there an official archive of past interps? And if an interp is rescinded is that annotated anywhere?

Bad News,

You guys on this Forum are very good at researching written documentation That is why i like this place so much. You guys keep things current. So, if you can't find something to reverse a ruling, do you stick with the present ruling?

I do know that the guy that runs our State with regards to officiating presently sits on the rules committee. But even if he wasn't, if he issued a memo that stated we are handling this situation here in Georgia this way......then doggone it, that's how I would handle it. Much like Coletop25.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Adam

I agree they need to be clear about what it means when they drop a case play.

We've gone through this in other sports and the unfortunate answer is "Who knows?"

Some case plays are redacted to save space and are still valid, others because they are no longer valid due to a rule change, others because the interpretation changes but we're never told as to why.

The lack of a case play not currently in the book is not definitive as to its validity. Barring a rule change or stated change in interpretation, I'm inclined to stick with the previous though no longer published case play.