Held ball or foul?
 

So what do you all call when a1 is lying on the ground and has just recovered a loose ball and then B1 comes and lands on top of them trying to tie it up. Held ball or foul?

Did you mean "him" when you said "them"?
If A1 and a B player had mutual grasp on the ball and then B1 comes and lands on top of "them", it could be a held ball then a dead ball technical on B1.
If B1 jumps onto "him", A1, who has the ball himself, then it's a foul.

Glad that someone else finally mentioned it.
Way too many people write "they" or "them" when a singular pronoun should be used. One of the worst offenders is a regular poster on this forum.

True if the ball is underneath A1 or on the "other side" of A1.

If the ball is on the "same side" as B1, then I'd generally go with the held ball and call any contact incidental.

Any forum contributor who errs gramatically in this way...they ought not be tolerated.

(political correctness prompts too many to avoid the generic singular "he" when it can be used in a non-gender oriented sense...I'm getting tired of typing s/he as a middle ground)

Foul. I'd rather not encourage jumping on top of players to get to the ball, no matter what side it's on. Players tangled on the ground leads to unnecessary dead ball technicals.

He/she/they should call a jump here.

Unless the contact is clearly intent on landing on/into the player as an excuse to crash and no a play on the ball.

You've got a player on the floor who doesn't have any sort of legal position, another player making a play on the ball. Unless you can tell that the contact is clearly disadvantaging a player (laying on the ground unable to do anything with no expectation of time and space.) Then contact is incidental and we jump it up.

Unless they feel like him was creating excessive contact leading to rough play by them. ;)

Probably me! ;)

I'll take note of that and fix my grammar...didn't realize I was using it like that.

Grammar Incorrectness ???
 

Save yourself some keystrokes, just type "e".

My nomination for "Post O' The Week".

Laying on the court is a legal position, nfhs a player has to the to his/her spot as long as they got there legally first.

Exactly, pretty much all positions are legal except when such position is used to impede an opponent.

Yes poor word choice on my part. I meant there was no spot to displace him off of or movement to impede. Contact made by landing "on top" isn't going to move him further into the floor, certaingly isn't going to stand him up. Ball has no where to be except either between the bodies which means the ball is getting contact/tied up first or the ball is off the side but the defensive contact is not putting the offense at any immediate disadvantage. Unless players are carshing in from the side and dog piling just to create contact, then calling fouls on players diving on loose balls probably isn't going to get you appreciated by fans, coaches, players or supervisors/partners IMO.

I disagree 100% with this post. We aren't there for the appreciation of any of the people you mention. How about calling a foul on such a play in the interest of protecting player safety? That's actually a reason that officials are there.

Huh?
 

The original topic dealt with a player jumping on top of another player.
If this response is in reference with that situation it's the wrong aim; not just a poor word choice, a poor ethical choice.
Assessment of reason for officiating suggested. If that's what was meant.

Jumping on another player is a foul, every time.

If you want an advantage to consider, by jumping on the other player the jumper gained access to the ball they would not have otherwise. The advantage/disadvantage is not always the effect is has on the fouled player but the benefit gained by the fouling player.

Since gravity doesn't allow him to maintain a legal guarding position without affording him time and space that the player with the ball is not entitled to, I'm not sure I buy that. If I see having to make contact in this case as gainining advtange (when if the player had been vertical he could have reached in for the ball and bellied up) then suddenly the player on the floor is entitled to more time and space then if we was standing.

I'm also not sold on this interp being shared by forum members on this topic and the shot block topic. The fact that a path will result in contact does not mean that the resulting action is a foul. All sorts of paths lead to contact it is our determination which decides if any of those contacts impacts the play in way that = a foul call. Calling a foul because the only way it could have happened was with contact is not a criteria for a foul call. He could have gotten access to the ball any number of ways. Standing over him, reaching down, laying down beside him and reaching across . . . the contact was caused to his choice of action but the choice of action gained him no more advantage then the rules or any other action would allow.

This sounds a lot like my argument on the block shots in which the ball is hit first and then there is significant body contact with displacement.

A1, standing, holding the ball, is run into by B1, who then reaches for the ball. FOUL.

A1, lying on the floor, holding the ball, is jumped on by B1, who then reaches for the ball. FOUL.

JMHO (Yeah, I'm sometimes not subtle in expressing my opinion.):)

What does LGP have to do with this play? Not every foul is based on LGP.

No disagreement in principle beyond when we use words phrases like "jumped on" or "runs into" mentally each person can see something very different. If I see player laying on the floor and to get the ball they are holding a player reaches down for the ball and leaves their feet landing on the ball and player. That is very different from someone who dives shoulder first into someone and then reaches for the ball. Both "jumped on a player".

Same as if someone is standing and the defender closes the space grabbing and the ball and creating contact at the same time, that is very different from someone who comes in checks a player off balance and then goes for the ball. Players run into/bump into (pick an adjective I guess) players all the time but if that contact doesn't knock them off stride or off the balance/rythm etc then its not a foul. If it wouldn't be a foul in that situation, the next play when tying up the ball legally shouldn't become a foul because after there was incidental contact and then there was a jump ball.

Player with the ball has no expectation of time and space. That doesn't give defenders a license to hit them but it does allow them to be tight enough that unless the player with the ball reverse pivots or moves the ball away that the ball would be in contact with the defender and certain parts of the body woudl likely be body to body. This includes the player on the floor who has the added problem of not being able to move away (which isn't the defenses problem and shouldn't take away/change any regular rules applying to them).

To be clear if the player is on the floor and some jumps into them violently discplacing them or moving them into a travel or jarring the ball loose then I'm going to have a foul. If a player is standing by or above a player laying on the ground and jumps on the ball another player is holding and lands on the player as a result that's not getting a foul.

My rule of thumb, if the joint custody is established prior to B1 landing on top of his opponent, I'll give them a held ball.
If not, I'm calling a foul most times.

Sorry, that too should be a foul. That is exactly the kind of stuff the NFHS is referring to in their POE's on rough play.

The only case the player is not getting a foul is if they both jump towards the same spot from equally advantageous positions.

Jumping on another player who is on the floor is not legal play, even if you get the ball, even if the player gets to the ball before landing on the player. The NFHS made that very clear 2-3 years ago.

I'll agree with this, even with my previous post. If the player goes airborne and lands on another player lying on the ground, I'm not giving them a held ball.

But would you give him or her a held ball? :rolleyes:

I too recall that POE about players diving on top of others. I don't remember which year it was and a quick Internet search didn't bring it up for me. Perhaps another forum member can post it.

Ahhhh snap!:D

Well, in that case, it is a them. Can't have a held ball without two or more players. ;)

Yeah, I figured somebody would call me on that. Good whistle. But then again, the inference would have to be that only one person would want the held ball to be "given."

Man, it really must be the off-season. And it's only May. Heaven help us all.

Since I'm probably the main culprit on using them and they as if they were singular, gender neutral, pronouns, I have first right on pointing any other violations on their use. I've caught myself two or three times since it was mentioned by Nevada....and am trying to correct my ways. Now, if I can just get someone to invent singular, gender neutral, pronouns.

That said, I may not be so incorrect after all. Here is what ?He or she? versus ?they? - Oxford Dictionaries has to say on the matter:

I'm guessing the same point would also hold for him/her vs them.

It came out for the 2008-2009 season. Section "C" is the section relevant here.

2. ROUGH PLAY. For the fifth time in the past eight years, rough play is a point
of emphasis. The committee continues to be concerned with the increasing level
of physical play being permitted. Officials and coaches are charged with
promoting good sportsmanship, encouraging fair play and minimizing the risk of
injury to student-athletes. Rough play creates conflict between players and
increases the opportunity for injuries.A. Post play. The key word is displacement. If a player is displaced, it is a
foul! Offensive players creating space by “backing down” a defender, or a
defender moving an offensive player off his/her spot on the floor, are
examples of post-play fouls that must be called.
B. Hand-checking. Defenders are not permitted to have hands on the
dribbler or offensive players away from the ball. Hand-checking is not
incidental contact; it gives a tremendous advantage to the person using
Page 69 2008-09 NFHS Basketball Rules
illegal hands/tactics. An offensive player who uses his/her hands or body
to push off in order to create a more favorable position has committed a
foul. Regardless of where it happens on the floor, when a player:
1) Continuously places a hand on the opposing player – it is a foul.
2) Places both hands on a player – it is a foul.
3) Continuously jabs a hand or forearm on an opponent – it is a foul.

C. Loose balls. Rough play and excessive contact while attempting to secure a loose ball continue to be a concern. Coaches, players and officials must understand that a loose-ball situation is not consent for a player to “jump on” an opponent on the floor in an attempt to create a held ball. Likewise, merely because a player is “going for the ball” does not give that player permission to “take out” an opponent who is in a more advantageous
position. Incidental contact (4-27) allows for contact when players are in
equally favorable positions.

I write that and "hir".

But unless terms have changed, isn't it "tie ball" rather than "held"?

It's been held ball for at least 18 years.

Are Doomed To Repeat It ...
 

Better than "jump ball" (I hope that Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. doesn't read this).

Did they merge it with the existing "held ball" (player holdiing ball 5 sec. in front court while closely guarded or surrounded by teammates & court boundaries)? Or is the latter called something else now?

In NCAA football there was for a while a ball status called "free ball" that was later eliminated, so I wouldn't be surprised.

1) No.

2) This has "always" been "closely guarded" and not "held ball"

I think this is one of those times that "always" depends on how long you've been looking, and possibly at whose codes or whose precis of codes (like Ed Steitz's Illustrated Basketball Rules).

I've only been officiating basketball for 18 years. I didn't actually go back and check my books, but I don't think it was ever (in that time) called "held ball" for closely guarded.

Oh, I'm sure you're right about that time. Terms must've changed some time between the 1970s & then.

i.e. ...
 

"Forced out."

Sample
 

Is this the kinda play on which some would not call a foul?
Foul Piling On to Get Held Ball - YouTube

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/04_iZu1Vx9k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Good example.

Now, if black had come from the other side (the "left" in the video), I would be less likely to have a foul even if he ended up on top because he (likely) would have the ball first.

I'ld have a foul there.

Now if he's coming into the ball from the other side or if the player is on their back and ball is up above and the player jumps into/onto the ball and ends up landing on the player. Different story.

:)

Perhaps you should read this:

?He or she? versus ?they? - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Getting the ball first doesn't give a player the right to land on another player. Still a foul.

Yes, then you have a player control foul. :D

What's The NFHS Signal For Dog Pile ???
 

I've got a foul on the Black player, and I believe that the trail has the same call as me.

Achtung!
 

Of course, only an anal grammar nazi would dare suggest that you should have said, "...as I." :p
But since there is no need for rules or structure or form or orderliness in language anymore -- because, after all, the English were loose with their verbage at some point back in the 16th century -- it really doesn't matter. :mad:

Chaucer Is Rolling Over In His Grave ...
 

The English language hasn't changed since it was invented. Why should we be allowed to change it now?

To telle yow al the condicioun, Of ech of hem, so as it semed me, And whiche they weren, and of what degree, And eek in what array that they were inne, And at a knyght than wol I first bigynne.

http://comicskingdom.com/rhymes-with-orange/2014-05-15

Are you sure about that? The English language is a forever changing thing and always will be. If you know someone that speaks under all the rules and does not use slang, dialect or other social media language it will be a very rare occasion. Oh and the English that spoke the language speak it differently than people in the US. And people in this country never speak it the same way or understand it the same way.

Peace

Who's Anonymous ???
 

Please don't make me whip out the blue font and use it on the general prologue to Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales.

Maybe a line from Beowulf would have been a better example:

Oft Scyld the Scefing from scathers in numbers
From many a people their mead-benches tore.

"Nothing is more discouraging than unappreciated sarcasm." (Anonymous)

This was holy crap funny to me.

I Don't Recognize It ...
 

Is that a line from the second nun's tale?

Was that the one with Whoopi Goldberg?

I agree with you yet some will say that if you block the shot first than all other contact after is not a foul.

What Ever Happened To Protect The Shooter ???
 

Note to Some: So, let's see if I've got this straight? A defender runs out to the corner to attempt to block a three point attempt. The defender legally, with no contact between the shooter, and the defender, and successfully, blocks the shot, sending the ball into the crowd (the crowd cheers) but his inertia (I love it when I get to use physics terms on the Forum) carries him into the still airborne shooter, pushing him into the third row of the bleachers, where the shooter sustains a concussion, a simple fracture of his right humerus, and a cut over his right eye that requires six stitches to close. Because the contact occurred after the shot was legally blocked, an official should rule that any subsequent contact is not a foul?

That seems like a blanket statement in both cases (now that the ball is blocked or held) the contact is not gaining the players a clear and immediate advantage in terms of the result of the play. Now to determine a foul call it comes to a judgement about whether the contact is excessive or leading to rough play.

The difference becomes (IMO) that I now cannot call a foul based on the immediate adv/disadv of the play not its a a serverity of contact and if I feel its becoming or leading to rough play.

I'm not sure about the sort of games every officiates but high end boys games JV, Varsity, higher+ in this neck of the woods you getting landed on is probably the least severe amount of contact you are going to deal with on a given possession. So I am going to have to see more then a jump ball where a player ends up on top of the other to make it rough(er).

That sounds like the sort of play that his interia was out of control and lead to dangerous or rough play. If similar interia carried him past the shooter brushing hinm slightly and the player landing on their feet unphased I'm guessing most would not call the foul. So contact with an airborne shooter isn't always a foul or not always a foul. There is a middle ground in there somewhere. That middle ground is determined by size/ability of athletes, age, level, location (association), and individual judgement. I'm not going to say a player jumping and ending up on another player is never a foul just like I'm not going to say its always a foul.

Some did not make this statement. You're basing your question off hearsay by Jeremy.

It might be time to refill a prescription of chill pills.

Know Peace

It has been said by some that most contact after the shot is blocked does not disadvantage the shooter and therefore is not a foul. You can find it on this site if you care to search for it.

Perhaps.
That, and the time-worn phrase, "...in my game...". :o

That's not you said initially here. I went ahead and highlighted the important changes.

This is when I hate that I'm color-blind. I can barely tell that you changed the font color on those 2 words.

Would different colors help?

How did you tell the teams apart before the home side was required to wear white?

Odd/even numbers?
:D

The Eyes Have It ...
 

Not the same. In the blocked shot case, the ball is often flying into the bleachers or somewhere such that the shooter was not going to be playing it anyway. Additionally, not ALL contact is considered incidental, just some types and amounts of contact.

However, landing on the player who is holding the ball almost certainly prevents them from being able to make some sort of play with the ball.

Panther, this is the basketball board. Perhaps your intended for your post to be on the football board.

Nope I got the right one. We don't play football around here and if we do its 3 downs with unlimited people in motion so its really not the same anyway.

This may just be my opinion but if we are talking about rough play a player ending up contacting or on top of another player during the course of a contact sport doesn't seem excessive.

If we are scaling rough play in a non basketball sense. If siblings are rolling around on the floor or grass tugging at a ball thats not really problematic. Someone throws a kick, punch or dirty shot that is problematic.

On any given basketball possession players can clip themselves trip over a teammates limb, fight through limbs and contact, get stove piped on a screen that doesn't get communicated by a teammate, catch an elbow on a post move/screen/rebound, etc . .. all of which may be legal/incidental. All of which are have more severe physical/emtional repsonse (pain, embarassment, frustration) then a body ending up on top of you temporarily.

Most people IME are less likely to react to someone who ends up ontop of them in the course of making a play on the ball then they are to some jabbing at them, striking at them with limbs or shoving/popping them on rebounds and screens. If I am supposed to call fouls to make sure I'm not encouraging rough play I'm getting as many of those as I can I'm not worried about two bodies that end up on top of one another after I was going to call a jump ball anyway.

I see a 70 in "A"; is there a 6 in "D"?

Sorry, I Should Have Included An Answer Key ...
 

Diagnosis: BadNewsRef has Red Color Blindness. (Disclaimer: I am not an ophthalmologist, nor do I play one on television.)

http://waynesword.palomar.edu/images/colorbl3.jpg

1. Normal Color Vision:
A: 29, B: 45, C: --, D: 26

2. Red-Green Color-Blind:
A: 70, B: --, C: 5, D: --

3. Red Color-blind:
A: 70, B: --, C: 5, D: 6

4. Green Color-Blind:
A: 70, B: --, C: 5, D: 2

Maybe My Sarcastic Post Could Have Been Better Written ???
 

In JRutledge's defense, I did not include a Roll Eyes Sarcastic Smilie in my post. I don't do Smilies. There weren't any Smiles in Beowulf, or The Canterbury Tales, so why should I use them? Did William Shakespeare use Smilies in Hamlet?

Player on floor and another player jumps on them and you don't see that excessive? Sorry, that just doesn't compute, particularly when the NFHS has explicitly said they want that to be a foul. Why would a player get to jump on top of someone at anytime in the game of basketball? To allow that simply isn't basketball.

Quick List of basketball plays/actions:

Pass and Crash where we've got nothing and the play goes the other way. But one player ends up on top of another on the floor.

Two players get tangled up rebounding/running the floor. One stumbles the other trips over them and one lands on a another. No where near the play the both get up and move on.

One player falls/down get knocked down and now on rebounding action trying to avoid stepping player/players stumble and fall landing on each other.

PLayer dives into a the bench of their/opposing team end up on top of someone.

This is just a short list of reasonable things that happen in basketball game where one player ends up ontop of another pretty regularly.

I'm not saying kids can swan dive into opponents with the ball on the floor but the blanket statement of jumping and landing on player while in the midst of making a play has to be uniformly applied as a foul seems nonsensical.

Players are allowed to reach for the ball and get to the ball athletically (jumping/diving/etc). If that play creates contact we've now got some factors to look at: A) is the contact creating any immediate and clear adv/dis that wouldn't have been gained without the contact B) is passing on this type of contact as incedental going to promote/allow/lead to rough play.

There are more aggressive and physically damaging or taxing things that can happen to a player that are perfectly legal than having a player on top of them. So why would this ALWAYS = rough play? If two players are tied up in a loose ball standing and one goes to ground pulling the other player down on top of them would you have a foul then?

I can see and do see situations when the contact is excessive or dangerous and/ creates an unfair adv/dis so in those situations I would call a foul. To say I'm going to automatically call a foul because in the course of a play one player ends up on top of another . . . I don't think so.

Maybe in your mind "jumping on" and in my mind "jumping on" are not covering the same range of possible actions, but to say its absolutely always going to be a foul is not something I'm comfortable saying.

A key, in my mind, is "jumping on" as opposed to "landing on". A1 is on the floor. B1 "jumps on" him for whatever reason. Not gonna say "absolutely always" to this (or most things) but there's a good chance this is a foul.

Most, perhaps all, of your examples are apples and oranges relative to the play being discussed.

If a player is on the floor and another dives/jumps/etc. onto that player, even in an attempt to get the ball, it is a foul, every time. At no time is deliberately jumping onto another player a legal play. That is quite different than stumbling or tripping and ending up on another player....which may or may not be a foul depending on how it all happened.

Again, from the NFHS POEs:

If one player is on the floor with the ball and the other dives on, those are not equally favorable positions.

NFHS POE states that they don't want jumping onto others to try to create a held ball or go for the ball, but it does specifically state that contact is incidental contact if both players are in equally favorable positions.

Maybe I'm reading this with my own view point but if contact when both players are in possession of the ball or the ball or players wouldn't/don't move anywhere else that seems like pretty equal or favorable position in terms of impacting the play.

In unrelated news FIBA has no such POE.

I also see a dramatic difference between a player jumping/diving from 5 feet away to crash into a player on the floor and a player standing over another player who has to leave their feet to get the ball as the player on the floor tries to rip the ball away from hands.

In both cases the player is "jumping" down onto the ball/player but contact, rough play, access to the ball are not equal. I think this may come down to either:
A) how we're reading to interpreting the POE (that again doesn't exist in 90% of games I officiate)
B) What we are considering "jumping" onto a player on the floor.

I would agree .

Except that its not the jumping we are calling the foul. Its the landing that causes the contact. If there is jumping but no contact at the end then there can't be a foul. So really what needs to be cleared up is the difference between leaving your feet and ending up on a player and "jumping onto" a player. IN both cases we are landing with equal or at least similar forces in contact and accoriding the POE that gets referenced the key difference would appear to be the amount force generated on the take of "jumping".That seems like a vague and grey area to be absolutely a foul.

In my games players don't accidentally fall onto other players who are already prone on the floor. So it is pretty clear-cut to me that a player on the ground with the ball is fouled when another player jumps on him in order to get the ball.

Making A Play ...
 

This (above) is the key, "while in the midst of making a play". We're not talking about random plays here, i.e., accidentally tripping and creating a domino effect. To me, "making a play" means a deliberate effort to get the ball. When players attempt to "make a play", the principle of advantage, and disadvantage, always has to be considered in any interpretation, and most interpretations of one player deliberately diving on another player in an attempt to get the ball would involve a foul being charged.

Agree with all below:

Would you allow such action if two players were vertical instead of horizontal with one standing and holding the ball?

Good question. Would I allow I player to dive or leap or jump to make a play at the ball absolutely.

If they never touched the other player obviously no foul.

If the jump has them tie up the ball and then land belly to belly or side to side with the offensive player simultaneously. Since the ballhandler has no expectation of time and space, and the contact is not significantly impacting the play and I don't feel like its leading to rough play probably calling a tie up.

If the jump has them get to the ball but go and displace the player or roughly move the other player. Probably foul but again intensity, level of contact we've allowing, etc. Come into play.

If they don't get the ball or need to go through to get the ball. And there is substantial contact. Foul

Again all I'm asking for is the same leeway in determining the result of the play. Will a lot of these result in fouls probably, but that doesn't mean they automatically should.

PLayer can belly up and bump players with and without the ball all over the floor. I get that a prone player should be protected in a similar way to a shooter because of their defenselessness. But every bump or collision with a shooter is not always a foul. IN the OP the prone player is in possession of the ball it is no longer loose so the defense is entitled to defend them, and they are not entitled to time and space. If they are roughly landing on players or not playing the ball or knocking them off their spot. Call it away. If they just end up tieing up the ball and part of all of their body ends up on top of the opponent as a result. The fact that they "jumped" to make a play on the ball seems like a silly reason to automatically call the foul.

Bump ???
 

They can? As a blanket statement?

They can. Sometimes it will be a foul and sometimes it won't.

Not on purpose.

I understand your thinking here but I don't think its reasonable to assume that blocking cuts, boxing out, bellying up to ballhandlers, running through the lane, posting up and post defense, denying players etc when contact we deem as incidental is occuring "accidently". People are taking lines and angles for a reason and they are being coached to create or intiate the contact on both offense and defense constantly.

Indeed, but these are not at all the same as diving on a player who is laying on the floor.

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.