Shooter landing on a player who flopped
 

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

How big is the player?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Camron:

Thanks. You beat me to it.

MTD, Sr.

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.

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

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

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

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.)

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

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.

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

Agreed.

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.