Shooter landing on a player who flopped

[BDevil15]

Hi all, Coach here. Played a team this week who tried to take a lot of charges. I'm not saying they were flopping constantly but there were a few. On two plays which I felt the opponents were falling before any contact my airborne shooter landed on the downed player and also went to the ground which I felt was very unsafe. In a general sense, is a player who is on the ground under an airborne shooter committing a foul by being under the shooters feet?

Thanks for all you do.

[Ed Maeder]

Not a legal guarding position. As long as your shooter was vertical I would call a foul on the person on the ground. This would have to be a htbt situation though as they are all different and judgement of the official.

[BDevil15]

Agreed, that's why I asked as a general situation. What if the player was shooting a runner or a layup going toward the basket. You qualified your statement by saying that the shooter must be vertical but shouldn't players who are legally moving toward the basket be allowed to land safely as well?

[Ed Maeder]

I would say yes to that as this is not a legal guarding position. If they are flopping by rule that is a technical foul. Have not seen that called as we teach to call it a block on the defense.

[Nevadaref]

A defender is allowed to take any spot on the floor provided that he gets there legally, which means without using illegal contact to reach the spot and arrives before any time or distance restrictions.

For guarding an airborne opponent, the defender must have obtained his spot on the floor before the opponent became airborne.

Now we can analyze your situations. If the defender falls to the floor prior to the shooter jumping, the defender has a legal spot, and it is not a defensive foul when the shooter subsequently lands on him. It could be an offensive fouls though.
If the defender falls backwards after the shooter is airborne, he has not met the requirement to be in his spot on the floor before the opponent went airborne. Therefore, it is a blocking foul if the shooter lands on this defender.

[Ed Maeder]

How big of a spot on the court is this defender allowed?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Ed Maeder

How big of a spot on the court is this defender allowed?

How big is the player?

[Ed Maeder]

LOL BuBa will take up more room, but are we going to give a 6 foot player 6 feet on the ground and shoulder width standing?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A defender is allowed to take any spot on the floor provided that he gets there legally, which means without using illegal contact to reach the spot and arrives before any time or distance restrictions.

For guarding an airborne opponent, the defender must have obtained his spot on the floor before the opponent became airborne.

Now we can analyze your situations. If the defender falls to the floor prior to the shooter jumping, the defender has a legal spot, and it is not a defensive foul when the shooter subsequently lands on him. It could be an offensive fouls though.
If the defender falls backwards after the shooter is airborne, he has not met the requirement to be in his spot on the floor before the opponent went airborne. Therefore, it is a blocking foul if the shooter lands on this defender.

I disagree. A defender is only required to obtain a legal position (in the path, two feet down, facing) before the opponent jumps. After having that, they are still permitted to move (as long as it is not into the opponent), duck, turn, etc. to absorb the imminent contact. Leaning back is nothing more than that. If the opponent still contacts them, nothing the defender did created that contact.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Ed Maeder

LOL BuBa will take up more room, but are we going to give a 6 foot player 6 feet on the ground and shoulder width standing?

The NFHS does not care if the player is standing up or laying down. He gets the space which his body occupies. From either of these positions he may not extend an arm, leg, knee, etc. into the path of an opponent to impede his progress, but simply being there isn't illegal.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I disagree. A defender is only required to obtain a legal position (in the path, two feet down, facing) before the opponent jumps. After having that, they are still permitted to move (as long as it is not into the opponent), duck, turn, etc. to absorb the imminent contact. Leaning back is nothing more than that. If the opponent still contacts them, nothing the defender did created that contact.

Camron,
I'm not talking about leaning backwards at the time of contact. We agree that is fine. I'm discussing falling backwards to the floor prior to contact such that the player now occupies a different location on the playing court.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Camron,
I'm not talking about leaning backwards at the time of contact. We agree that is fine. I'm discussing falling backwards to the floor prior to contact such that the player now occupies a different location on the playing court.

Isn't falling just advanced leaning? As long as it is away from the opponent and not into the opponents path, how does it change?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Isn't falling just advanced leaning? As long as it is away from the opponent and not into the opponents path, how does it change?

Per the rules, player location is determined by where a player is in contact with the floor (or was last in contact with the floor if airborne). Therefore, leaning backward and actually falling to the floor are different. The player obtains a new location on the court.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I disagree. A defender is only required to obtain a legal position (in the path, two feet down, facing) before the opponent jumps. After having that, they are still permitted to move (as long as it is not into the opponent), duck, turn, etc. to absorb the imminent contact. Leaning back is nothing more than that. If the opponent still contacts them, nothing the defender did created that contact.

Camron:

Thanks. You beat me to it.

MTD, Sr.

[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?