Quote:
Originally Posted by mdray
if B1 is laying on the floor, right behind and out of the field of vision of A1, and non-incidental contact (A1 falling to the floor) occurs, that's a blocking foul on B1(caused by an illegal screen if you will)
|
Case 10.6.1E, last in the 2004-05 case book (typos are mine):B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. b1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts' B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effrot to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.
That should clear up how the FED *wanted* the play called. Open for discussion, of course, is the unresolved "are case plays that are no longer published still valid?"