Gets There First ...

Nevadaref · #1 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 20, 2014, 06:06pm

That play ruling does not match the one issued by the NFHS several years ago and since removed from the Case Book. Don't know from where you obtained it, but it wasn't the NFHS.

That said if B2 falls to the floor under an airborne A1 who then comes down vertically on B2, that is a blocking foul. For your follow up question, if B2 fell in some other spot or was there before A1 went airborne, then B2 should not be charged with a foul under NFHS rules.

BillyMac · #2 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 20, 2014, 07:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That said if B2 falls to the floor under an airborne A1 who then comes down vertically on B2, that is a blocking foul. For your follow up question, if B2 fell in some other spot or was there before A1 went airborne, then B2 should not be charged with a foul under NFHS rules.

Thanks. That's what I thought.

BillyMac · #3 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 20, 2014, 07:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That play ruling does not match the one issued by the NFHS several years ago and since removed from the Case Book.

That's what confused me. I can't find it. Can anybody help?

Camron Rust · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 20, 2014, 07:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That play ruling does not match the one issued by the NFHS several years ago and since removed from the Case Book. Don't know from where you obtained it, but it wasn't the NFHS.

That said if B2 falls to the floor under an airborne A1 who then comes down vertically on B2, that is a blocking foul. For your follow up question, if B2 fell in some other spot or was there before A1 went airborne, then B2 should not be charged with a foul under NFHS rules.

Agree. The above citation was an NCAA interpretation and the NFHS interpretation was the exact opposite.

BillyMac · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 20, 2014, 07:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Agree. The above citation was an NCAA interpretation and the NFHS interpretation was the exact opposite.

That's what I thought. Now, who can come up with that NFHS "exact opposite" interpretation? And, it doesn't have to be someone from Missouri.

Nevadaref · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 20, 2014, 07:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That's what I thought. Now, who can come up with that NFHS "exact opposite" interpretation? And, it doesn't have to be someone from Missouri.

You posted it yourself in this previous thread: On The Floor Is The Appropriate Description Here ...

Now where are your keys?

BillyMac · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 20, 2014, 07:39pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You posted it ...

That You guy seems pretty smart. And I hear that he's quite handsome.