This is a play which must be seen to make a proper decision. BUT most of us think that based on a description which includes the phrase "jumps on" it will be a foul a great majority of the time. Change the phrase to "lands on" and it still may well be a foul.

Disadvantage ...
 

If the player who has been jumped on, or landed on, cannot begin a dribble, then he's being put at a disadvantage and it's a foul.

Yes you are....you're now saying the player landed on the floor and touched the player who was already on the floor with the arms. That isn't landing ON the player. You can't land on the player and land on the floor at the same time. It is one or the other.

We probably reached the point a while ago where this should have ended so I will let this be my last response on this topic.

Without any further explanation or detail. The terms "jumped on", "landed on", "run into", etc, etc IMO leave a wide range of interpretation/application in terms of what actions and results are taking place. To be perfectly fair jumped on is an idiom that can mean a variety of things but in this case we are limiting its scope to the physical act.

Its abundantly clear in most people's responses that despite the lack of clarity in the OP and POE in regards to specfics of what constitutes a jump, landing, or how much of a player has to be "on" the other; they are willing to concede that whatever in their mind that constitutes it should equate foul.

I'm still at a point where I can come up with scenarios in which I would consider the person to have "jumped" and in some way ended up "on" the player with the ball as a result of their jump which should not be fouls. In most of those scenarios the people here don't feel the langauge jump on or land on applies to as intended, despite that being how its written.

Thanks for your input on this topic.

Is your last name Clinton? ;)

Depends in the the definition of "is" is.