Trip on a rebound
 

A1 comes down with a rebound and trips on B1 who is laying on the floor. Is it a traveling on A1 or a block on B1 because B1 is not in a legal guarding position ? Or is there another call ?

FED: Travel

NCAA: Block

Why not a block in both?

B/c the rules are different.

We've had a simialr discussion of this type of play before...someone will come along with specific rule citations shortly, but in a nutshell:

NFHS: each player is entitled to a spot on the floor (regardless of player location or whether player is standing/kneeling/laying down.

NCAA-M: any player that has not established LGP and causes (by way of contact) the ball handler to trip/fall/loose control of the ball has committed an "automatic" (to use a John Adams term) foul.

While more positions are not considered legal when it comes to what is or isn't a block (as in laying on the floor), it isn't quite that universal.

I disagree. A player lying in the floor does not have LGP. A player lying on the floor doesn't have both feet touching the floor with his/her torso facing the opponent. Unless you're going to argue while on the floor his feet are touching, but I think that's just being a bit obtuse.

NFHS 4-23

Not all fouls are based on LGP.

Peace

By rule, how do you justify the player lying on the floor, and not causing the traveling violation? Are you saying it's case by case, meaning it depends on how the defender got to the floor?

Every player is allowed their spot on the floor. That does not have anything to do with LGP. LGP applies to specifically when a defender is trying to prevent an offensive player with the ball. On a rebound you often do not have LGP considering that players are not facing each other or the basket. The NF does not make the distinction like the NCAA does under the rules. So if a player is on the floor and someone trips over them, it is not the responsibility of the person on the floor to be in LGP in this situation.

Peace

So, lets throw this out there. What if I, as a defender, decide to lay down in the lane as my opponent is posting me up. The post guy receives the pass without the knowledge that his opponent is lying down behind him, and shuffles his feet backwards and falls to the ground....you call a traveling violation?

I think I agree here. Every player is entitled to a spot on the floor, but a spot 6 feet wide is an unfair advantage and not the spirit of the rule.

You hear "within the vertical frame" a lot. You never hear "within the horizontal frame."

By rule how do you justify calling a trip on the player that hit the floor? Couldn't incidental contact apply here?

As far as your scenario where the kid lays down I would assume you would call that an unsporting foul.

4.19 Art. 14...An unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists
of unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.

In the OP, the action all took place during rebounding activity, so LGP has nothing to so with it under NFHS rules.

He doesn't have LGP.

"I was tying my shoe; I had a cramp"...not unsporting.

Now I'm just being obtuse, but my point is I still believe the player on the floor does not have LGP. FWIW, my Interpreter agrees.

A1 pump fakes...B2, thinking a shot is about to go up turns to face the basket. A1 drives and go to and through the back of stationary B2....B2 never obtained an initial legal guarding position.

Are you going to call a block here because B2 did not have LGP?

Your interpreter would be wrong (according to NFHS rules) ... as was previously stated, it isn't a case of legal guarding position. It would be a travel on the ball handler if there is control.

This is the reason I think I would consider this to be incidental contact.

Not a comparable scenario.

B2 has LGP in this one, so this is an easy, if unpopular, PC call. You don't have to face someone to have LGP. You only need to be facing to establish it.

I already changed the scenario to indicate that B2 never obtained legal guarding position.

Every player is, by rule, entitled to his spot on the court, and LGP is not required for this. LGP is meant to add privileges for the defender, not to add requirements to a stationary (with regard to the court position) player.

And you are 100% correct. But, at the same time, your point is 100% irrelevant.

LGP is only relevant when the defender is moving. If you read what LGP allows, that is all you've find....that various movements are legal once it is obtained. Stationary players may have LGP but they don't need it since they're not doing any of the things afforded by having LGP.

Actually you didn't. B2, in your play, had it to start with. Turning away doesn't remove it.

It has only been in the recent past that the NCAA rule diverged from the NHFS rule. It is not whether the player on the floor has LGP. What matters is did the player on the floor aquire his position legally (think screening and Principla of Verticality).

For example, during rebouding action, A1 gets a defensive rebound and B1 is standing directly behind him but is facing toward's Team A's basket. B1 does not have a LGP but he is entitled to his spot on the floor and if A1 turns around and knocks him down it is a PCF by A1 in both NFHS and NCAA rules.

Change my play just slightly: B1 has fallen to the floor behind A1 instead. He is still legally entitled to his spot on the floor (see Principle of Verticality) and if A1 trys to dribble over B1 or trips over B1, A1 has infringed upon B1's Cylinder of Verticality (I love this FIBA term because it describes how we should apply the Principle of Verticality.).

But the nimcompoops (I hope I spelled that correctly, :p) in the NCAA who don't have a clue as to what a legal position on the floor issued an interpretation changing a logical ruling that had been with us for decades (if not centuries, :p).

MTD, Sr.

No, they decided that laying (lying??) down on the floor is not a legal guarding position. I like it that way.

That's the problem with the nimcompoops logic, LGP has nothing to do with the situation. The criteria that had to be applied was: Was B1 legally entitled to the spot on the floor? LGP had nothing to do with the situation.

MTD, Sr.

Which Came First ???
 

I've heard of donkey basketball, but I've never heard of chicken basketball.

Surely you're not trying to imply that any contact with a player who is not facing the opponent is somehow a foul on that player...

LGP applies in specific situations. Getting landed on is not one of them.

They don't want players lying on the floor so they say having a legal guarding position is relevant. And from attending camps this summer they also don't want defenders just standing in the paint with their backs turned.

In most cases, the player on the gound has just fallen....perhaps to be considered to be still moving and, thus, needing LGP.

I don't have a problem with the ends that the NCAA is after....they don't want a defender to be able to legally block a path wider than they can block while vertical. That does make sense to me. There may have been a better way to write it so that it wouldn't confuse others about when LGP is and is not needed, but I don't write the rules.

Lying. You lay an object down. You lie yourself down (despite the prayer and the Metallica song).

That said, I much prefer the NCAA viewpoint to that of the NFHS. I can understand being entitled to a spot on the floor to prevent someone from diving on you (e.g. loose ball), but that's where it should end, IMO. If someone trips over you while you're lying prone or supine, I believe that should be on you.

That just means you're both wrong.

Another situation talked completely up again because of this site. ;)

Well I worked an NCAA game today, had a player fall to the floor and then after a loose ball, the ball handler falls over a player "laying" on the floor and my partner comes in and makes a great call and calls the foul on the prone player. Funny, he reads this site and we talked about this conversation.

You guys just had to talk it up didn't you. :D

Peace

The very first D3 game I ever worked A1 comes downs with a rebound, takes a step back and stumbles over prone B1. I called a travel. Coach A was unhappy. After the game my crew chief talked to me about the play and I looked up rule. One rule I'll never get wrong in either FED or college games ever again.

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.

Sounds like you need to keep calling it the way you have been as long as you continue to operate under the IAABO rule set (or NCAA). If you start working under NFHS rules then you will need to change your mindset.

Send him the caseplay that BktBallRef posted above and see what his reponse is then.

This.

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

Show Him The Caseplay Citation ...
 

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.

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.

Channeling ???
 

Exactly what Jurassic Referee would say.

Double Or Nothing ...
 

So I'll ask a second time:

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.

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.

Inquiring Minds Want to Know ...
 

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)

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?

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.

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.

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).

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

similar issue......
 

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

Are you saying you've never heard this?

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

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.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...pot-floor.html

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.

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.