Under cutting?

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by AremRed

NCAA: "Every player shall be entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided that such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent" (4-17.3).

NFHS: "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided the *player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent" (4-37-3).

NBA: "In all guarding situations, a player is entitled to any spot on the court he desires, provided he legally gets to that spot first and without contact with an opponent" (NBA Comments on the Rules, II-A-2, page 57)

Let's not pretend the rule sets are so different. The only difference is that the NCAA has a case play and the NFHS does not. I would call the OP a foul under both rule sets, it's pretty clear that a defender laying on the floor is not in LGP.

I'm in full agreement. I disagree with BadNewsRef that 4-37-3 (which by the way is also verbatim within 4-23-1) somehow provides the answer that this isn't a foul in high school, because the content of the rule is the same as NCAAM 4-17.3 where it apparently is a foul.

I hear there's an old NFHS interpretation outside of the case book that says this isn't a foul. It's late and I'm not going to look it up. If it's there, Mary Struckhoff probably put it there. Golly gee I love all those unofficially official rulings that she saw fit not to put in the case book...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Golly gee I love all those unofficially official rulings that she saw fit not to put in the case book...

It comes down to budgets. They have so many pages to put stuff on. They put in what will fit and periodically publish interpretations and situations outside of the book. It would, in a paper version of the book, be fully impractical to put in case plays for everything that might happen. When new things become important enough to put in, they have to push some things out. That doesn't make them obsolete. If some people had their way with their insistence on having a case play for everything, the book would be bigger than Grapes of Wrath.

While the rules are the same, the HS interpretation is really the only one actually supported by rule since neither set of rules, except in this one case, require LGP at all times when there is contact. LGP, in both, only grants the privilege of movement and verticality, neither of which is relevant to the case at hand. Still, the NCAA has the right, just like the NFHS has done in other cases, to declare that situation X should be ruled in some particular way even if the rules don't actually state so....such as the NFHS team control situation.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While the rules are the same, the HS interpretation is really the only one actually supported by rule since neither set of rules, except in this one case, require LGP at all times when there is contact.

Exactly. In the absence of a clarifying, official interpretation, the rule is king.