Trip on a rebound

[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?

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.