Tripping, Or Being Tripped ???

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

There's a way to determine what B1 did wrong, and therefore call a foul call.

What did B do wrong? If he takes a position with his back to A1 (no LGP) and A1 subsequently trips on his foot, do you call a foul for that?

There is nothing to say what A1 did wrong to be at fault and called for a violation.

Fell to the floor while holding the ball.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What did B do wrong?

It's not so much that what B did was wrong. But the fact of the matter is he doesn't have LGP, and therefore could be called for a blocking foul.

If they both returned to the floor on their feet, and A1 got the rebound... turned... and ran into B1 (who had not gained LGP)... what do you have? A blocking foul on B1.

And it doesn't seem a whole lot different than if B1 is guarding A1 (who has the ball). B1 has not established LGP, and A1 trips while trying to dribble around him. That would be a blocking foul on B1... not a traveling violation on A1.

Why do we give B1 more leeway since he's laying on the floor, and not standing? You don't need intent to call a foul against a player. Heck, there's plenty of times a foul by a player is an accident.

I don't understand treating B1 different here, just because he fell. And at the same time penalizing A1 when he absolutely did nothing wrong. Unless you count not looking down, to make sure nobody fell to the floor, before taking a step after a rebound.

By the way... the reason A1 fell to the floor is because of B1. He didn't just fall... he was tripped.

[DerekTall]

I had a similar situation happen before, this is what I called:

Since Player B fell to the floor and could not possibly get up, and since Player A ran over her(B did not move her body in the way or anything like that) then it was a travel. If the player on the floor moved their feet/hands to halt the player, I may have called it a foul. But if she is lying on the floor being still, I see that as her owning a spot on the floor.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

It's not so much that what B did was wrong. But the fact of the matter is he doesn't have LGP, and therefore could be called for a blocking foul.

If they both returned to the floor on their feet, and A1 got the rebound... turned... and ran into B1 (who had not gained LGP)... what do you have? A blocking foul on B1.

And it doesn't seem a whole lot different than if B1 is guarding A1 (who has the ball). B1 has not established LGP, and A1 trips while trying to dribble around him. That would be a blocking foul on B1... not a traveling violation on A1.

Why do we give B1 more leeway since he's laying on the floor, and not standing? You don't need intent to call a foul against a player. Heck, there's plenty of times a foul by a player is an accident.

I don't understand treating B1 different here, just because he fell. And at the same time penalizing A1 when he absolutely did nothing wrong. Unless you count not looking down, to make sure nobody fell to the floor, before taking a step after a rebound.

By the way... the reason A1 fell to the floor is because of B1. He didn't just fall... he was tripped.

The difference is that the case in point deals with the right of . . . "Every player (being) entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent." That is different from the GUARDING rules, 4-23-1 through 5. And that statement is made at the beginning of those rules, to set the foundation for guarding an opponent, whether stationary or moving.
I think of a player standing on the court, not guarding an opponent, and an opponent simply runs through/over that player. The player who was run over, has a right to be on the court, and not be in peril of being a target, just because he/she was not trying to guard an opponent.
I don't see that basic principle as giving more leeway to the player, but as a starting point to establish the rules of guarding, which are then expanded to define the priciples of competition - offense/defense.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's the same dilemma we've always had -- when a case disappears, (and there's no other), does that mean the ruling is reversed?

FWIW, I think that the correct call *should be* a blocking foul. Much like the "barking dog play", B is NOT entitled to a spot on the floor if s/he's literally on the floor.

And that seems to be the rationale used by some other governing bodies. It's not uncommon to find rules from the Nat'l Fed that are seemingly biased towards one or another perception of players' safety, such as the continued absense of an RA. When one admits that the Fed's rules are the basis for virtually all b-ball played at the HS level, and all lower/younger levels, the reasoning for some of those rules may make more sense.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

It's not so much that what B did was wrong. But the fact of the matter is he doesn't have LGP, and therefore could be called for a blocking foul.

If they both returned to the floor on their feet, and A1 got the rebound... turned... and ran into B1 (who had not gained LGP)... what do you have? A blocking foul on B1.

Incorrect. I have nothing....or possibly a charge. LGP is NOT required for a charge or to avoid a block in many cases. It might be a block but it will not be for the case you described unless there is more that happened.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

And it doesn't seem a whole lot different than if B1 is guarding A1 (who has the ball). B1 has not established LGP, and A1 trips while trying to dribble around him. That would be a blocking foul on B1... not a traveling violation on A1.

Not necessarily. It may be nothing.

You seem to want to call a foul on B just because there was contact and B did not have LGP. Unfortunately, that is just not correct. B has to actually do something illegal for it to be a foul and not having LGP is not illegal.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Why do we give B1 more leeway since he's laying on the floor, and not standing? You don't need intent to call a foul against a player. Heck, there's plenty of times a foul by a player is an accident.

We don't....if you properly call fouls (or properly not call fouls) when B is standing.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I don't understand treating B1 different here, just because he fell. And at the same time penalizing A1 when he absolutely did nothing wrong. Unless you count not looking down, to make sure nobody fell to the floor, before taking a step after a rebound.

A1's mistake was trying to cross a location already occupied by another player. If A successfully goes over B, great, but B is not liable for A's poor choice of routes if B does nothing wrong. There is no requirement for B to make his/her position known to A. A has the ball and is in control. A has to act accordingly.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

By the way... the reason A1 fell to the floor is because of B1. He didn't just fall... he was tripped.

No. If you trip over a log while walking through the forest, did the log trip you or did you trip over the log. The difference is in who is the actor. B did not trip A. B didn't do anything. A tripped, but it wasn't B that did it.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

If they both returned to the floor on their feet, and A1 got the rebound... turned... and ran into B1 (who had not gained LGP)... what do you have? A blocking foul on B1.

That's not sufficient information.

If B1 was standing still and had not obtained LGP -- more likely to be a PC foul.

If B1 was moving (and not in the same path / direction as in a screening play) and had not obtained LGP -- more likely to be a block.

The OP is more like the first play.

LGP give the defense additional leeway; that doesn't mean the defense doesn't have any rights without LGP.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If you trip over a log while walking through the forest, did the log trip you or did you trip over the log.

(Question: Did the log, as a tree in the forest, make a sound when it fell?)

Thus, the title of this thread: Tripping, Or Being Tripped ???

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

(Question: Did the log, as a tree in the forest, make a sound when it fell?)

Thus, the title of this thread: Tripping, Or Being Tripped ???

A player is entitled spot on the floor.provided it legal. In legal guarding definition of 4 we have verticality. in screening defintion we have verticality with a STANCE shoulder width apart. When a player is lying on the floor he is not legal. Consider, player A1 stands 10 feet away from B1. He has his hands into his chest with elbows extending outside shoulders. B1 has all day to avoid A1. He runs close to A1 trying to stay with his man. He runs into A1's extended elbow. That IS a foul on A1. He's standing, not moving. still a foul because he is outside his plane. When your lying on the floor you are horizontal.....

you are not entitled to lie down. you can fall down, and you might not mean it, but sometimes you just have to get the hell out of the way....and if you dont its a foul on you.

(Did better on shift key...work in progress)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

A player is entitled spot on the floor.provided it legal. In legal guarding definition of 4 we have verticality. in screening defintion we have verticality with a STANCE shoulder width apart. When a player is lying on the floor he is not legal. Consider, player A1 stands 10 feet away from B1. He has his hands into his chest with elbows extending outside shoulders. B1 has all day to avoid A1. He runs close to A1 trying to stay with his man. He runs into A1's extended elbow. That IS a foul on A1. He's standing, not moving. still a foul because he is outside his plane. When your lying on the floor you are horizontal.....

you are not entitled to lie down. you can fall down, and you might not mean it, but sometimes you just have to get the hell out of the way....and if you dont its a foul on you.

(Did better on shift key...work in progress)

Nice explanation.....although it is incorrect.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Nice explanation.....although it is incorrect.

yep

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I don't agree with calling a travel on A1. Nothing A1 did caused him to travel, as the travel was actually caused by B1. And if B1 didn't obtain that spot on the court legally (LGP), then it seems as though it should be a blocking foul.

Is it fair? No. But neither call would be fair, so you have to go by the rules and make a decision that somebody isn't going to like.

Stepping on a player who isn't moving isn't doing anything wrong?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Nice explanation.....although it is incorrect.

I liked it...and I think it's right and the reason they removed the other play from the case book and the reason this play is called a block. Having said that, iv'e screwed up before and i'm sure i will again.

All I've seen so far is player entitled to spot on floor provided he get there first. Got it, but that doesnt mean lying down is a legal position. the player standing as i mentioned has a spot. He was there forever. But because his elbows are sticking out that's a foul. Even if B1 runs near him on purpose. he cant be beyond his plane. when you are lying down your feet are on one end. vertical plane goes up. the rest of you is horizontal, out of your vertical plane...just like the screener.

i see the player lying on the floor out of his vertical plane or taking up multiple spots on the floor. 6 foot player lying on floor takes up 2 or 3 spots. He only gets 1.

so tell me the screwup. thx

[BillyMac]

Why did the NFHS remove the "travel" call caseplay from the 2005-06 Casebook?

Why has IAABO (statewide, and again, not the NFHS) now come out, on record, and called this a blocking foul?

Could it be because the "powers that be" have decided that this is now a blocking foul, even though the rule wording may be ambiguous?

Why can't the grand poobah of the NFHS be a participating Forum member? That would make matters a lot simpler.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I liked it...and I think it's right and the reason they removed the other play from the case book and the reason this play is called a block. Having said that, iv'e screwed up before and i'm sure i will again.

All I've seen so far is player entitled to spot on floor provided he get there first. Got it, but that doesnt mean lying down is a legal position. the player standing as i mentioned has a spot. He was there forever. But because his elbows are sticking out that's a foul. Even if B1 runs near him on purpose. he cant be beyond his plane. when you are lying down your feet are on one end. vertical plane goes up. the rest of you is horizontal, out of your vertical plane...just like the screener.

so tell me the screwup. thx

They remove things from the case book, not to change them, but to make space for new interpretations in other areas. They have to remove something when adding something so they don't have to keep adding pages and printing costs. When they want to change a ruling, they don't silently remove it, they replace it with one or more new ones that express the new ruling.

The player lying on the floor is in a legal position (in NFHS only). If they stick up their arm or leg and trip a player with it, they're not. Exactly the same principle as your standing player. A stationary player owns their space from head to toe regardless if their orientation is vertical or horizontal . If that player sticks a limb outside the frame of their torso and causes contact, they have fouled. If they do not stick a limb outside of the frame of their torso, they are legal.