Trip on a rebound

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

How can it be a block on a defender whose only movement was backward, whether he falls to the floor or not?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

Originally Posted by just another ref

How can it be a block on a defender whose only movement was backward, whether he falls to the floor or not?

Are you saying you've never heard this?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Are you saying you've never heard this?

I have heard it. I don't see how you justify it.

[ColeTops25]

Found something interesting you guys might appreciate. Seems as though this debate is nothing new. A search of the records reveals this argument dates back to 2001 on this very forum, with some of the same members.

That case book reference (10.6.1) was alive and kicking in 2001, maybe earlier than that.

Debate: Yeah – Nay: Legal Entitlement to Spot on Floor

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I have heard it. I don't see how you justify it.

I'm not trying to justify it. I'm just saying that I know it's something I've always heard, whether doing HS or college games.

As far as prone defenders, 2 of the 3 USA rule sets don't consider those players legal if a ball-handler contacts them. And now, apparently, we have an IAABO interpreter who doesn't think they are legal. So it might be a good idea for the NFHS to put their old interp back into the case book to make their ruling clear.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

What you've been told doesn't agree with the rules.

Why should it be a block? If B1 had stayed upright, it would been an obvious and significant charge if the play was such that B1 was able to fall backwards and still get landed on. B1's movement isn't changing that. I can accept not calling the charge when B1 yields the position, but to flip to a block just isn't right.

But that really isn't the case we're talking about.

What we're really talking about is B1 falling across A1's path, not being already in it with LGP and falling back.