James Madison-Indiana clip

[JetMetFan]

[JRutledge]

Not sure I would call anything. The JM player went to where the Indiana player was. I think I would have called nothing. JM player was too much in a hurry to get the ball back where a player fell. It does not look like the Indiana player did anything on purpose.

Peace

[Drizzle]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not sure I would call anything. The JM player went to where the Indiana player was. I think I would have called nothing. JM player was too much in a hurry to get the ball back where a player fell. It does not look like the Indiana player did anything on purpose.

Peace

I see the same thing. Not the IU player's fault the JM player decided to straddle his legs.

[just another ref]

Isn't there something in the NCAA rule about lying on the floor not being a legal position, no matter what?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Isn't there something in the NCAA rule about lying on the floor not being a legal position, no matter what?

You are not considered in a LGP if you are on the floor. This is not that situation or even circumstances. No one was defending anyone, a player fell after a shot and the player decided to run right at him. Not the same thing at all.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Isn't there something in the NCAA rule about lying on the floor not being a legal position, no matter what?

Yep, by NCAA rules, this player would be guilty of a blocking foul by laying on the floor. They have unequivocally stated that lying on the floor is not a legal position and that if someone trips over such a player it is a block. They have made no distinction on how or why the player gets to the floor.

If this were NFHS, this would be an intentional foul for contact with the thrower...if you go by the rule as worded and as presented when they changed it.

I think both of those outcomes are a result of a poorly thought out rule/interpretation. A block isn't deserved at either level.

[JRutledge]

The NCAA rule is clearly talking about playing action. This is not playing action, this is a player trying to make a throw in while running into an already fallen player. If that is the case, then this should only be a technical foul as the contact took place out of bounds with a thrower. That would be a very far-fetched interpretations as none of the contact took place in what the rule actually addresses. I have no problem with the result as the thrower is mostly at fault. If he had of waited or ran to another part of the end line area, he would not have fallen over the Indiana player.

Peace