Trip on a rebound

[PG_Ref]

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. However, as my wife will attest, I have been wrong on plenty of occasions, and I'm sure that an Interpreter has been wrong before. That said, this dialogue has bothered me because I was starting to believe that I have been making the incorrect ruling with regards to this matter. As such, I decided to enlist the help of IAABO Coordinator of Rules Interpreters, Peter Webb. Below is his response to my question regarding a player laying on the floor.

"As is cited within you description:

A-1 does not have legal guarding position. The ruling is a blocking foul on A-1.

A-1 is fine laying on the floor, however, he/she is not in a legal position as per rule 4.23, when a player extends him/herself's body or body part beyond the normal stance/position and then contact occurs he/she is not in legal position.....ruling foul."

I feel better that what I have been ruling is corroborated. YMMV...hope this helps.

It's still not a foul on the player who is laying on the floor. I think NFHS rules committee trumps an interpreter.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

It's still not a foul on the player who is laying on the floor. I think NFHS rules committee trumps an interpreter.

I agree. I'm a loyal IAABO member, and have been for thirty-two years, but Mr. Webb may change his tune if he sees the caseplay citation.

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)

This is the part of Mr. Webb's interpretation that I question: "When a player extends him/herself's body or body part beyond the normal stance/position and then contact occurs he/she is not in legal position.....ruling foul."

We are discussing a player just lying on the floor, not a player lying on the floor that extends an arm, or a leg, to trip an opponent. We are talking about a player who trips over an opponent who happens to be lying on the floor. Remember, Confucius say: There's a difference between being tripped, and tripping.

ColeTops25: Did you make Mr. Webb aware of the caseplay? Be honest with us, because a few of us are IAABO members and we need to get some closure here.

[BktBallRef]

So the NFHS is wrong with their NFHS case play about an NFHS rule and an IAABO interpreter is correct.

Lah me.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

So the NFHS is wrong with their NFHS case play about an NFHS rule and an IAABO interpreter is correct.

Lah me.

It is, in fact, so wrong, I question whether Mr Webb was given the situation correctly. Either that or he's wholly unaware of the case play.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

He's wholly unaware of the case play.

So I'll ask a second time:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

ColeTops25: Did you make Mr. Webb aware of the caseplay?

[ColeTops25]

Just getting back to the board guys. I have not made him aware of the case play. I am looking at my 2012-13 rule book, and I honestly do not have 10.6.1 (E). I have 10.6.1 (a,b,c), however nothing beyond that. Possibly that's the disconnect? I don't know. I'll dig a little deeper and see what I can find.

Certainly not looking for an argument here. It's obvious there are two different interpretations of this rule. Again, I have my NFHS casebook in front of me, and I do not have that 10.6.1 E scenario.

[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.

[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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Lah me.

Exactly what Jurassic Referee would say.