Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
That isn't what verticality means. Falling forward (into the opponent's space) would be giving up verticality.
The rule explicitly states that B1 can turn or duck to lessen the impact or protect themselves. Falling back is exactly that. It is not wanting to get your teeth knocked out just to draw a charge.
The only way I'm entertaining any idea of 'faking' is if they fling themselves back to make it look like they were hit harder than they were (if at all). Even then, it would be a very high bar to call it a fake.
|
Falling back is not part of verticality. Rule 4-45, which defines verticality, says nothing about falling back. In fact, you can read the opposite in that, because falling backwards means the defender is leaving their verticality.
Now, if you want to say falling back is a way to way to "absorb the shock of imminent impact", and falls under the "turn or duck" part of rule 4-23... okay. Not sure I agree, but that's a lot better than telling us that falling backwards is part of verticality.
Personally, I think this can be deemed an unsporting act, as the defender may be flopping, which is grounds for a tech. Notice I said "can be", since you'll have to decide based on being there and seeing it. Or maybe from prior activity such as this defender being known as a flopper, and trying to get calls earlier in the game, or hearing about it from other officials from previous games.
I can't find one in the new case book (my old ones are stored away right now), but I would think there's something that covers this play. Help?