Originally Posted by so cal lurker (Post 1012477)

Is there a matter of degree here?

The player that relaxes and falls back 6 inches before contact is not making anything more dangerous, nor flopping--he's preparing to absorb the anticipated hit.

The player that is halfway to the ground before contact comes is something else.

I wonder if some of the posts here are based on a different view of what the defender is doing.

Originally Posted by SC Official (Post 1012493)

Doing a trust fall backwards because you’re too scared to take the contact is not the same as ducking/bracing for the imminent charge.

Call a charge and have fun explaining to the offensive coach why you’re bailing out a defender who didn’t take the contact and put the offensive player in a vulnerable position. Call a block and it’s much easier to explain to the defender’s coach why you didn’t reward his guy. Plus that’s the expectation at the higher levels, and I disagree that there’s “no rules support” for calling it that way.

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 1012490)

I'm sorry, but I don't see where verticality has to do with the offensive player. Every article in the definition (4-45) talks about the defender's verticality.

Perhaps giving me a scenario where the dribbler/shooter's verticality is necessary to know.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1012503)

True, but the principles are effectively the same as other rules covering offensive players.

But, that is really just a distraction from the main point. You've still not shown anything where the defender violated the verticality principle other than proclaiming it.

Originally Posted by bondguy (Post 1012379)

Play: A1 begins a drive to the basket. B2 steps into A1's path, has two feet on the court while facing A1, and just before A1 reaches B2, B2 starts to fall backward. As B2 is falling backward but has not yet fallen all the way to the court, A1 dribbles through B2's torso, which knocks B2 the rest of the way to the court. Since B2 was not completely upright when the contact occurred, who shall be assessed with the foul?

Ruling: When B2 had two feet on the court and was facing A1, B2 established legal guarding position on A1. After establishing legal guarding position, there is no provision that requires a defender to remain completely upright when the offensive player initiates the contact with the defender. Although it may be easier and would be more convincing to rule a player-control foul on Al had B2 remained completely upright when the contact occurred, a player-control foul shall still be assessed to A1 for charging into legal defender B2.
Rule: 4-23-2,4-23-3,10-7-7, & 10-7-9

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 1012506)

Seriously? You're still trying to say I said verticality applies?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 1012369)

Falling back is not part of verticality. Rule 4-45, which defines verticality, says nothing about falling back. In fact, you can read the opposite in that, because falling backwards means the defender is leaving their verticality.

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 1012372)

Nowhere in the rule defining verticality does it say anything about leaving the defender's vertical space. When you say "falling back", that certainly implies leaving a player's vertical space. Thus... not verticality.

Again, say it's legal in terms of LGP, and thus a legal move... fine. But unless you can point to a case play or interpretation from NFHS, then I don't see how it can be called as part of verticality.

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1012483)

I disagree.

I just think a lot of officials aren't going to reward a player who falls before contact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Originally Posted by SC Official (Post 1012493)

Doing a trust fall backwards because you’re too scared to take the contact is not the same as ducking/bracing for the imminent charge.

Call a charge and have fun explaining to the offensive coach why you’re bailing out a defender who didn’t take the contact and put the offensive player in a vulnerable position. Call a block and it’s much easier to explain to the defender’s coach why you didn’t reward his guy. Plus that’s the expectation at the higher levels, and I disagree that there’s “no rules support” for calling it that way.

Originally Posted by Eastshire (Post 1012518)

If he falls before contact, there can't be a foul, right? That's different from a defender who is leaning back and is contacted anyways. No call or block here is rewarding the offensive player for an illegal play.



I want to here that explanation to the defensive coach. Because to my mind it includes the phrase "I changed the rules for tonight, the defender is responsible for contact initiated by the offense."

And let's put to rest the idea that the defender is in any way responsible for putting the offensive player in a vulnerable position. The offensive player is responsible for being in control of his body. If the defender not being there to bang against leaves the offensive player in a vulnerable position, that is the offensive player being out of control and is his own responsibilty.

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1012526)

If the defender is falling before contact, how is the offensive player's contact putting the defender at a disadvantage?

Originally Posted by Eastshire (Post 1012528)

Usually, it's not. I think the correct call in most of those cases is a no call. By rule, it's not a block as the defender has LGP, and the contact doesn't put the defender at a disadvantage. It's incidental and should be ignored.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1012508)

That is what you keep arguing.....your words saying the player didn't have verticality....