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?

[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 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.

[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.

[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.