Tripping, Or Being Tripped ???
 

Our state interpreter (IAABO, not the same as NFHS) emailed us this situation (below) yesterday:

A1 and B1 both jump in an attempt to rebound a missed try. A1 secures the rebound as B1 loses his/her balance and falls to floor behind A1.
A1 spins to begin a dribble contacts B1 and falls. Is this a travel on A1 or foul on B1?

Ruling: This is a blocking foul on B1. Although B1 fell to the floor, he/she did not obtain a legal guarding position, which requires an opponent to initially face a player with 2 feet on playing court and the front of the torso must be facing the opponent (Rule 4-23-2).

Haven't we debated this on the Forum a few times? If I recall, some were of the opinion that a player was entitled to his place on the floor (literally) if he got there first. I believe that there was also some discussion regarding the difference between the NFHS, and NCAA, ruling on this play.

Did we come to a consensus, based on NFHS rules, in line with the ruling described above, or did we not come to a consensus?

LGP is not required for a player who is not moving. Never has been.

Guarding ???
 

4-23 Gaurding

ART. 1 Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an
offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard
and opponent, but the maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded. Every player is
entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first
without illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder,
hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position
if contact occurs.

ART. 2 To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard’s torso must be facing the opponent.

ART. 3 After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne,
provided he/she has inbound status.
b. The guard is not required to continue facing the opponent.
c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it
is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.
d. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane.
e. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact.

ART. 4 Guarding an opponent with the ball or a stationary opponent without
the ball:
a. No time or distance is required to obtain an initial legal position.
b. If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal
position before the opponent left the floor.

ART. 5 Guarding a moving opponent without the ball:
a. Time and distance are factors required to obtain an initial legal position.
b. The guard must give the opponent the time and/or distance to avoid contact.
c. The distance need not be more than two strides.
d. If the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position
before the opponent left the floor.

This stands out: Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

But this also stands out: A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

I recall hearing "a player is entitled to a spot on the floor," and the case play you cited was once ruled a travel. Didn't make sense to me. I like this interpretation much better.

The NFHS has said otherwise.

From a bob_jenkins post from a few years ago:

And yes, the NCAA has ruled the opposite to be the case.

It's History ...
 

2004-05 Casebook 10.6.1E is now gone. It's disappeared into a landfill. That probably means that the ruling is also gone?

Or, IAABO is going off the deep end on their own.

it seems like they are saying if a player is on the floor they will be called for a tripping/blocking call which doesn't make sense to me. I mean it could be the right call, but if you just have something when B dives on the ground and then A1 gets the ball and sees B on the floor and then runs over her that would be a foul on B.

I had something like that yesterday with a mad scramble for a loose ball, and then a player picked it up and tripped over one of the bodies on the floor. I wasn't going to call anything but my partner did. The coach was annoyed with the call but my partner, was "what am I not supposed to call anything? She got tripped." No intent on the trip, just an accident. I guess these plays are a case by case basis.

You realize intent is irrelevant when determining whether a foul should be called, right?

of course, sorry I mean my partner's rationale.

And By Over, I Literally Mean Over ...
 

It's Thelma, and Louise, all over again.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.6080...1&pid=15.1&P=0

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.

Obtaining a spot legally and having legal guarding position are not the same thing. It is not illegal to fall down, unless you fall into the path of another player. If that other player come along and trips on you after, it's his own fault.

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.

There's a way to determine what B1 did wrong, and therefore call a foul call. There is nothing to say what A1 did wrong to be at fault and called for a violation. If the players were standing, would you call it differently? And if so... Should you?