Falling before contact

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

We've debated this before on here, but here's the play that I had last night and want to hear thoughts...

NFHS: Secondary defender B1 establishes LGP under the basket. Before being contacted by ball handler A1, B1 begins to fall backwards such that he does not "take" the contact and that A1 doesn't initiate any contact.

We know that a defender can turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact, but in my judgment that's not what B1 was doing. I ruled a blocking foul. However, I'm not convinced that the rules necessarily support my decision even though I've seen this play adjudicated identically in other games (NCAA and NFHS). My justification is that B1's action put airborne A1 in a dangerous position returning to the floor.

Is there anything in the rules that supports a blocking foul on this play?

Originally Posted by VaTerp

But there is no rules support for a blocking foul without contact simply for falling down before contact in an effort to draw a charge.

There is no rules support for a blocking foul even with contact. Defender was in LGP and is allowed to turn or duck or back away....period. A1's actions put A1 in a dangerous position, not B1's. B1's actions merely reduced any impact.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There is no rules support for a blocking foul even with contact. Defender was in LGP and is allowed to turn or duck or back away....period. A1's actions put A1 in a dangerous position, not B1's. B1's actions merely reduced any impact.

What Camron said.

If B1's actions make it hard for me to tell if A1 knocked him down or if he fell due to his own lack of balance, I'll no-call it. I do this a lot at the JV level, before the kids really learn how to stay put. I am not, however, calling a blocking foul on a player with LGP.

[Pantherdreams]

IMO

You cannot call a block here. The defense didn't do anything illegal and you had no contact so no grounds for a common foul at all.

The issues we encounter are: A) is when there is marginal/little contact but now the defender ends up on ground. B) If you feel this was intended to fake being fouled (FYI I find that language/semantics to be impossibly limiting)

Not to open a different can of worms than the OP but in the case of A my feelings are that the defense is allowed to move backwards/sideways to protect themself. If they want to go backwards head/butt first instead of feet first that is on them I'm moving on with a no call.

In the case of B. I think you had better have something in their actions/reactions to indicate they expect a call. Throwing a T because someone is soft, scared, young, anticipating or off balance is rough.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

IMO

You cannot call a block here. The defense didn't do anything illegal and you had no contact so no grounds for a common foul at all.

The issues we encounter are: A) is when there is marginal/little contact but now the defender ends up on ground. B) If you feel this was intended to fake being fouled (FYI I find that language/semantics to be impossibly limiting)

Not to open a different can of worms than the OP but in the case of A my feelings are that the defense is allowed to move backwards/sideways to protect themself. If they want to go backwards head/butt first instead of feet first that is on them I'm moving on with a no call.

In the case of B. I think you had better have something in their actions/reactions to indicate they expect a call. Throwing a T because someone is soft, scared, young, anticipating or off balance is rough.

Not only do they have to expect a call, but they have to know that one wasn't deserved. I've called this once, in a kids YMCA game, after warning him. The one that drew the T was a flop at the top of the key when the dribbler was still 6 feet away.

[SC Official]

Good responses which I will keep in mind going forward.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There is no rules support for a blocking foul even with contact. Defender was in LGP and is allowed to turn or duck or back away....period. A1's actions put A1 in a dangerous position, not B1's. B1's actions merely reduced any impact.

Maybe not entirely. Turn, duck, or back away....sure, that's permitted and maintains LGP. But to back away legally assumes you remain vertical. So if the defender keeps his feet planted but begins to sink his butt and lean back like the Tower of Pisa, and initial contact occurs as the offensive player gets tangled up in the defender's lower legs, the defender has violated the principle of verticality (Ref: 4-45-6) and this could be a block.

To align with the majority of opinions, I, too, more often than not have a no-call here. I'm just saying that I've seen it called a block and called it a block myself for the reason stated above.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Maybe not entirely. Turn, duck, or back away....sure, that's permitted and maintains LGP. But to back away legally assumes you remain vertical. So if the defender keeps his feet planted but begins to sink his butt and lean back like the Tower of Pisa, and initial contact occurs as the offensive player gets tangled up in the defender's lower legs, the defender has violated the principle of verticality (Ref: 4-45-6) and this could be a block.

To align with the majority of opinions, I, too, more often than not have a no-call here. I'm just saying that I've seen it called a block and called it a block myself for the reason stated above.

Violating the principle of verticality involves moving/being out of the obtained space towards the opponent, not away from the opponent. The defender legally obtained he space where his/her feet are located.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Maybe not entirely. Turn, duck, or back away....sure, that's permitted and maintains LGP. But to back away legally assumes you remain vertical. So if the defender keeps his feet planted but begins to sink his butt and lean back like the Tower of Pisa, and initial contact occurs as the offensive player gets tangled up in the defender's lower legs, the defender has violated the principle of verticality (Ref: 4-45-6) and this could be a block.

To align with the majority of opinions, I, too, more often than not have a no-call here. I'm just saying that I've seen it called a block and called it a block myself for the reason stated above.

We've all seen it called a block, many of us have called a block. If it's what's expected in your area by the folks who control your assignments, by all means comply.

We just don't get to pretend there's any rule backing for it.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Maybe not entirely. Turn, duck, or back away....sure, that's permitted and maintains LGP. But to back away legally assumes you remain vertical. So if the defender keeps his feet planted but begins to sink his butt and lean back like the Tower of Pisa, and initial contact occurs as the offensive player gets tangled up in the defender's lower legs, the defender has violated the principle of verticality (Ref: 4-45-6) and this could be a block.

To align with the majority of opinions, I, too, more often than not have a no-call here. I'm just saying that I've seen it called a block and called it a block myself for the reason stated above.

How have they violated the principle of verticality. They still have a spot on the floor. THeir legs (if that is what is making contact) are still within that cylinder. Which brings up another issue of controvery but lets stay on point. If you are saying they've gone down way early and failing legs are now the issue I get that.

Back to the point as you've stated I'm just apt to no call it and move on. The idea of whacking a kid or calling them for a foul for "protecting" themselves, especially around here with the recent emphasis on concussion training and protocols for all players. coaches and parents . . .just seems to be too big a can of worms for me to open.

[SNIPERBBB]

The only time you would ever make the flop T is like when Adam stated, contact still several feet away and an "UUUUMMMPHHHHH!" added in.

[BigT]

Does anyone have a problem on OP play if the feet of the defender on the floor makes contact with the offensive player landing or rebound the miss and I call a blocking foul?

[deecee]

Curiously, for those that are using the term verticality here and cylinder here you know those have specific meaning. And someone falling isn't vertical or within their cylinder.

Depending on how egregiously early the fall is its a block on any contact with an airborne shooter. Most of the times the defenders properly just brace for impact but if they are half way to the floor and then there's contact, I'm not no-calling it or calling a PC.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

Curiously, for those that are using the term verticality here and cylinder here you know those have specific meaning. And someone falling isn't vertical or within their cylinder.

Depending on how egregiously early the fall is its a block on any contact with an airborne shooter. Most of the times the defenders properly just brace for impact but if they are half way to the floor and then there's contact, I'm not no-calling it or calling a PC.

Yes, we do know what it means. Verticality & Cylinder is about moving out of your space INTO the opponent's space, not about moving part of your body away from the opponent. Nothing about falling back invades the opponent's space.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

How have they violated the principle of verticality. They still have a spot on the floor. THeir legs (if that is what is making contact) are still within that cylinder. Which brings up another issue of controvery but lets stay on point. If you are saying they've gone down way early and failing legs are now the issue I get that.

Back to the point as you've stated I'm just apt to no call it and move on. The idea of whacking a kid or calling them for a foul for "protecting" themselves, especially around here with the recent emphasis on concussion training and protocols for all players. coaches and parents . . .just seems to be too big a can of worms for me to open.

Pantherdreams,

Kids sometimes begin falling early because there's a bit of fear in them. That's normal and at times it can happen to any kid. I agree with you that it isn't T worthy. T worthy needs to be really bad..

What i wanted to mention is that falling down early doesn't protect the defender, in my opinion. They may be doing it to protect themselves but it makes it worse, imo. If a player takes the contact on the chest, he can bounce off and away. The player who begins falling early, is now on his way down to the floor. The offensive player is now going to land on top of him and a good chance defender's head is going to bounce on the floor. (been there done that, which should explain some of my posts….)

I'd much rather take them the right way--waiting for solid contact. bouncing away. That's the way ive always coached it and the way everyone does coach it. Sometimes you do start falling early, it happens. thx

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Pantherdreams,

Kids sometimes begin falling early because there's a bit of fear in them. That's normal and at times it can happen to any kid. I agree with you that it isn't T worthy. T worthy needs to be really bad..

What i wanted to mention is that falling down early doesn't protect the defender, in my opinion. They may be doing it to protect themselves but it makes it worse, imo. If a player takes the contact on the chest, he can bounce off and away. The player who begins falling early, is now on his way down to the floor. The offensive player is now going to land on top of him and a good chance defender's head is going to bounce on the floor. (been there done that, which should explain some of my posts….)

I'd much rather take them the right way--waiting for solid contact. bouncing away. That's the way ive always coached it and the way everyone does coach it. Sometimes you do start falling early, it happens. thx

Interesting. Now we are really off topic but a lot of schools around here will bring in a gymnastics coach or martial arts instructor to work on controlled falls. The theory being that controlling the direction and impact of energy is safer for potential brain injury than trying to brace and absorb energy while controlling head.