We are not talking about diving on a player. We are talking about leaving their feet (jumping) to make a play on a ball that in this case results in ending up paritlally or entirely on top of a player who was already on the floor. If there is not play on the ball and they are just jumping onto a player on the floor that is a different issue.

Uh, that is diving on another player. Not sure how you can reasonably describe it as anything else.

Remember, that player on the floor had the ball.

Compare that to a player standing with the ball and an opponent jumps at that player, in an attempt to play the ball, and slams into that player. Are you saying that you let defenders do that? If so, why? If not, how is it any different than when a player is on the floor.

Not good to have a spelling error in every post that you make!

The player on the floor has the ball.

I can jump to make a play on the ball. (Vertical or Horizontal). If we end up tied up vertical/horizontal then that isn't creating contact and now are in equally advantageous/disadvantgeous position, and any contact that happens after this now needs to be judged in terms of excess or rough play not.

By saying "diving on" and "slam into" you make it sound like every play on the held ball is a Jimmy Snuka Super Splash. There are any number of possible outcomes that result in all or part of a player on top of the player holding the ball they tied up by jumping.

IF the player is standing and i dive at the ball and chop block the player in the process = foul. If i Jump at the ball and tie it up and end up belly to belly standing or slide/fall to my butt once the ball is tied end up wrapped around his leg with my lower body . .. etc. Then these are making contact but not slamming or throwing around and could be seen as incidental.

Same with a player on the floor I can leave my feet at a player on the floor to make a play on the ball and have any or all of my body end up on the player and have" jumped on". Location of the ball, whether or not I needed to make contact first to gain access to the ball, how much contact ends up being made, whether its reasonable amount of contact given the level/age/game/previous calls etc. . .all come into play.

I can't believe you're even trying to make that point.

Landing on top of another player is always going to have a lot of force...usually 150 to 200 pounds of force. That much force IS rough play.

Disagree. If the act of landing has part of (most of?) their body hitting the floor first and then their upper body or arms then landing on the ball and player your dealing with pretty minimal weight/force. Again substanitally less force then a shoulder/rib to forearm contact on a screen. (Full weight + momentum/speed x smaller surface area). Or any other incidental or legal collision that may occur in a basketball game. If less forceful and physically taxing then normal legal basketball plays how is it then rough?

All I know, is if I started no-calling the pileups like this, chaos would ensue. Well, maybe not, but I'd find myself with a steady diet of gameless nights.

"jump on top of" means "jumped on top of"; why is it being made so difficult?

Again, you're changing the play.

I'm not changing the play.

THe OP says the defender lands on the player with the ball. We added jumping/diving to the equation after putting the discussion for the POE in regards to loose ball on the table.

At no point in the jump/land conversation has how much of the player, which body parts, or in what order make contact upon landing. The argument presented was that if you jump and land on the player it should always be a foul.

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? ;)