Trip on a rebound

[Tio]

If someone has a good relationships with their state rules interpreter, send it to them and share the results.

[maven]

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?

1. It's maven, not Raven. Not a Baltimore fan.

2. It's a case play, not an interpretation, though it has not appeared in the case book for at least the past 7 years. Hence the problem: the status of this old case play is unclear, since the rules that justify it have not changed since it dropped out of the case book.

3. The NFHS publishes the books and coordinates the rules, but state interpreters have the privilege of determining how the rules will be applied in their states. There is no "national interpreter."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

That defender may indeed be taking more floor area but it would be quite easy to pass or even step over them. It is a pretty useless position.

The only thing the NFHS case is really saying is that if there is such a player on the court, the opponent ought to be smart enough to not get tripped by them. It would usually be very easy to avoid them.

[OKREF]

Asked my area coordinator, this was his answer.

Normally that would be a travel. However if B1 is moving on the floor and causes A1 to fall it could be a foul. If A1 just trips over B1 then it would be a travel.

In my opinion LGP doesn't apply in this situation. Every player is entitled to a spot on the floor. As soon as the player lying on the floor moves he would then be responsible for the contact. For what its worth.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Asked my area coordinator, this was his answer.

Normally that would be a travel. However if B1 is moving on the floor and causes A1 to fall it could be a foul. If A1 just trips over B1 then it would be a travel.

In my opinion LGP doesn't apply in this situation. Every player is entitled to a spot on the floor. As soon as the player lying on the floor moves he would then be responsible for the contact. For what its worth.

Agreed, for what it's worth.

[KevinP]

We had this play happen recently where a player had possesion of the ball off a rebound , an opposing player was laying on floor, the ball handler as he rebounded ended up straddling the player in floor, as he started his dribble to get off him the player on floor stood up causing the ball handler to stumble and fall. We called a foul on player on floor, does verticality pertain to the player on floor?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by OKREF

As soon as the player lying on the floor moves he would then be responsible for the contact.

Not necessarily even this. B1 is guarding A1 in the post. B1 slips on a wet spot and goes to the floor. He rolls away from A1 to avoid contact as he gets to his feet. Just then, A1 receives the pass and turns to the basket, tripping over B1 in the process.

Even though B1 is moving, he has done nothing illegal.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by KevinP

We had this play happen recently where a player had possesion of the ball off a rebound , an opposing player was laying on floor, the ball handler as he rebounded ended up straddling the player in floor, as he started his dribble to get off him the player on floor stood up causing the ball handler to stumble and fall. We called a foul on player on floor, does verticality pertain to the player on floor?

I believe a player must have LGP to have the benefits of verticality.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That defender may indeed be taking more floor area but it would be quite easy to pass or even step over them. It is a pretty useless position.

The only thing the NFHS case is really saying is that if there is such a player on the court, the opponent ought to be smart enough to got get tripped by them. It would usually be very easy to avoid them.

Almost every situation I've had a player trip over a prone player is following a rebound and often the prone player is behind the ball-handler, so I wouldn't say it's easy to avoid them.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Almost every situation I've had a player trip over a prone player is following a rebound and often the prone player is behind the ball-handler, so I wouldn't say it's easy to avoid them.

True, but the player still ultimately has the responsibility to look where he is going.

[maven]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The only thing the NFHS case is really saying is that if there is such a player on the court, the opponent ought to be smart enough not to got get tripped by them. It would usually be very easy to avoid them.

Did you mean to say this?

It's not always an issue of intelligence. The opponent does not always see a player on the floor, especially during rebounding.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

True, but the player still ultimately has the responsibility to look where he is going.

Which has nothing to do with the convo Camron and I were having. We were discussing the amount of area on the court a prone player takes up as compared to a player standing in a normal stance. And obviously that matters to the rules makers since players who stand with their knees and elbows outside the frame of their body get called for blocks and illegal screens.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Which has nothing to do with the convo Camron and I were having. We were discussing the amount of area on the court a prone player takes up as compared to a player standing in a normal stance. And obviously that matters to the rules makers since players who stand with their knees and elbows outside the frame of their body get called for blocks and illegal screens.

When the defenders start throwing themselves on the ground to defend the offensive player, then we can have a legitimate conversation about how much space that defender is taking up. Since the player on the floor is not guarding anyone, the point seems kind of moot, doesn't it?

[APG]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

You and just about the entire basketball world. In my opinion, the NCAA/NBA ruling on this type of play is better.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

When the defenders start throwing themselves on the ground to defend the offensive player, then we can have a legitimate conversation about how much space that defender is taking up. Since the player on the floor is not guarding anyone, the point seems kind of moot, doesn't it?

To me it is not important how they got there. I just don't like the rule as the FED interprets it.

What gets called if B1 flops backwards as A1 goes airborne and then A1 lands on some part of B1's body and A1 trips and falls? I know from the time I've been officiating I've been told to call B1 with a block.