Shooter landing on a player who flopped

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Once a shooter goes airborne, shouldn't we be talking in terms of the defender's verticality? Not his location on the court?

By leaning backwards after the shooter goes airborne they are no longer vertical, and any subsequent contact is on the defender.

If this were a question about a block/charge call, instead of a possible shooting foul, then the thing about not moving towards the offensive player would come into affect. No?

Verticality and location always apply.

And, a "block/charge call" can be a "shooting foul."

I'm really not sure what you are asking, here.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Verticality and location always apply.

And, a "block/charge call" can be a "shooting foul."

I'm really not sure what you are asking, here.

Is it verticality you're looking for here instead of the defender's location on the court?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Is it verticality you're looking for here instead of the defender's location on the court?

No -- you're looking at both. And, "verticality" generally means toward the shooter (whether directly forward or laterally) -- not "backwards"

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No -- you're looking at both. And, "verticality" generally means toward the shooter (whether directly forward or laterally) -- not "backwards"

Okay. While we all would likely call a foul on this play I'm not convinced about the justification.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Rich]

Turn, duck, absorb, fine.

Falling backwards in an obvious attempt to draw a charge call? Completely different.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Rich

Turn, duck, absorb, fine.

Falling backwards in an obvious attempt to draw a charge call? Completely different.

And there is a rule that covers it: it's a technical foul. The rest of this seems to be trying to justify not enforcing that rule and still finding something to call against the defender.

(I have seen that T called once in a V boys game many years ago. There was a foot of space between the defender and the attacker when the defender screamed and flung himself backward -- and the official was in exactly the right spot to see that space.)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Okay. While we all would likely call a foul on this play I'm not convinced about the justification.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

I don't think it there is justification despite the fact that many people call it a block.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

And there is a rule that covers it: it's a technical foul. The rest of this seems to be trying to justify not enforcing that rule and still finding something to call against the defender.

(I have seen that T called once in a V boys game many years ago. There was a foot of space between the defender and the attacker when the defender screamed and flung himself backward -- and the official was in exactly the right spot to see that space.)

That's for "faking being fouled" and I find that to be wholly different. A player falling to the floor and then tripping a player who's trying to land is different, although there will be people here who claim the defender is entitled to every spot on the floor behind him when he established LGP.

I've called this technical foul once. Same scenario you posted. I ended up whacking the coach, too, which I knew was going to happen the second I called the initial technical foul. Didn't care, either. I had already talked to the player and the coach about that kid's tendency to throw himself backwards and they didn't heed what I said.

[Raymond]

I doubt any supervisor will be mad if you call a blocking foul on a prone Defender who fell backwards to avoid contact and who causes the Airborne player to trip when he lands.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I doubt any supervisor will be mad if you call a blocking foul on a prone Defender who causes an Airborne player to trip when he lands.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Agreed.

[BryanV21]

To be clear, and please correct me if I've misunderstood...

1. This play should not be a foul on the defender falling backwards, as according to the rules he did nothing wrong. Assuming he wasn't faking the charge and gets a technical foul.

2. This could be a charging call, assuming the defender obtained LGP. I say "could" because we'd have to be there to judge the contact I suppose.