Under cutting?
 

a good question for those much more senior than I (Rookie here).

2 man crew:

A1 attempts and misses lay-up. B1 trips over own feet and falls to the left of the paint. A2 jumps, obtains rebound, lands, and then jumps to attempt shot. A2 drifts away from the shot and lands on B1, who is still laying in the same position from when she fell.

My call: No foul. B1 was in that position before A2 jumped to put the shot back.

Any other opinions/advice?

I don't know how much contact there was, but I would probably call a block on the player who is on the floor not in LGP.

NFHS rules this is not a foul.

4-37-3 ...
 

Because of this?

Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided the
player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

NCAA-Men's it would be a foul, HS it is not.

I own this rule because the first ever NCAA game I ever officiated I called a travel on A1 for falling over a prone player. That's when I learned there was a rules difference.




PS: Fed-Ex?????

Fair. But can you give me a general idea of where to look NCAA - M? I don't disagree, just trying to learn! :)

I'm actually curious myself. I looked and couldn't find it, either in (NCAAM) 4-17 or 10-1. With the exception of the restricted area stuff, the rules do not appear to be substantively different from the NFHS rules.

It's probably in some other section?

NCAA-M

A.R. 86. B1 slips to the floor in the free-throw lane. A1 (with his back to B1, who is prone) receives a pass, turns and, in his attempt to drive to the basket, trips and falls over B1.

RULING: Foul on B1, who is not in a legal guarding position. (Rule 4-17.4.a)

The rule is the same for NCAA-W...A.R. 84.

Can't play legal defense lying on the floor.

Ok. Interpreted by an established case play. Check.

So my next question is, where's the NFHS case play that explicitly refutes this interpretation for NFHS purposes? To put it another way, where's the NFHS guidance that says I shouldn't rule on this play the same way in high school as I would in college? Note the NCAA case play rule citation is 4-17.4.a, which is basically the same rule as NFHS 4-23-2a.

I'm not so sure this isn't a foul in high school, too.

Rule already cited by BillyMac, 4-37-3.

Search the interps.

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...:confused:

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.