Shooter landing on a player who flopped

[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?

[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.