The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 06, 2017, 08:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by so cal lurker View Post
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.
Some don't want to distinguish between the two. It is easier to just call a block if a defender flinches than make a judgement. It is a lot like a player not being "set". All too many officials, at least in the past, tagged a player with a foul simply for not being "set". I think that has improved a lot in the last few years at all levels...largely due to better training (and video). This is another one of those things that takes time to change and get right.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 06, 2017, 08:38pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,612
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
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 06, 2017, 09:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,687
I'm not talking about a player who throws himself/herself to the floor. In those cases, I defer to the offense since the defender made it impossible to tell how hard they were or were not hit. I'm talking about the play that leans back.

Fundamentally, there is no rule support for calling a block on a player that leans backwards before contact any more than their is for calling a block on a player that steps backwards before contact.

Yet, there is plenty of rules support for the opposite. Such a player is only doing what LGP allows them to do...move obliquely/away and/or ducking/turning to soften the impact and they are not invading the vertical space of their opponent nor extending outside of their own vertical space over an opponent.

To call a block or even to just not call the charge is rewarding the offensive player for running through the space legally obtained by an opponent...which only encourages reckless play.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 06, 2017, 09:33pm
Stubborn Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,451
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
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 06, 2017, 09:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,467
Doing a trust fall backwards because youíre 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 youíre bailing out a defender who didnít take the contact and put the offensive player in a vulnerable position. Call a block and itís much easier to explain to the defenderís coach why you didnít reward his guy. Plus thatís the expectation at the higher levels, and I disagree that thereís ďno rules supportĒ for calling it that way.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 06, 2017, 11:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Official View Post
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.
The whole offense in a vulnerable position is a canard. The offense created all the contact in this play. The offense put themselves in a vulnerable position by jumping at a defender in front of them. Nothing the defense did caused any contact. If the offensive player goes through the defender, it is a charge all day every day regardless of whether the defender loses any teeth or not.

Fundamentally, calling blocks as a default encourages rough play. It encourages offensive players to go where it will create unnecessary contact when they should pull up or divert around a defender that has cut off the path.

I'd rather get a call right than choose the call that may be easy to explain. That was the case for a long time with being "set". Only are most officials starting to call it correctly after decades of using "set" as the criteria.

And if you say there is rules support for calling a block, I'm waiting for you to cite such rules.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com

Last edited by Camron Rust; Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 11:47pm.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 06, 2017, 11:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryanV21 View Post
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
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 07, 2017, 12:07am
Stubborn Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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.
Seriously? You're still trying to say I said verticality applies?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 07, 2017, 01:37am
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by bondguy View Post
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
Hey BondGuy, I'm intrigued with the interpretation you cited. I'm trying to track the source of that down. Where did you get that from?
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call
www.myvirtualofficialsassociation.com
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 07, 2017, 03:01am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryanV21 View Post
Seriously? You're still trying to say I said verticality applies?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
That is what you keep arguing.....your words saying the player didn't have verticality....

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryanV21 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryanV21 View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 07, 2017, 07:44am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
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
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Official View Post
Doing a trust fall backwards because youíre 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 youíre bailing out a defender who didnít take the contact and put the offensive player in a vulnerable position. Call a block and itís much easier to explain to the defenderís coach why you didnít reward his guy. Plus thatís the expectation at the higher levels, and I disagree that thereís ďno rules supportĒ for calling it that way.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 07, 2017, 08:35am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
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.
If the defender is falling before contact, how is the offensive player's contact putting the defender at a disadvantage?
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 07, 2017, 08:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond View Post
If the defender is falling before contact, how is the offensive player's contact putting the defender at a disadvantage?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 07, 2017, 08:47am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
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.


My priority in these situations is:

(1) to get them to stop flopping
(2) make a correct call

in that order.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 07, 2017, 08:49am
Stubborn Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
That is what you keep arguing.....your words saying the player didn't have verticality....
Thank you.

Those posts are showing everyone why the rule of verticality does not apply to this situation. And why your continued suggestions that I think otherwise are wrong.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Block/Charge How do you see the secondary defender on this play? BionicBanana Basketball 9 Thu Mar 16, 2017 02:35pm
Player starting to fall in anticipation of charge drofficial Basketball 43 Thu Dec 02, 2010 04:25pm
Contact w/defender rounding bag - OBS ? wadeintothem Softball 19 Wed Oct 07, 2009 03:08pm
Jab by the defender on the jump shooter (non-contact) FrankHtown Basketball 44 Thu Apr 02, 2009 06:31am
Charge/Block contact Ref in PA Basketball 11 Mon Dec 03, 2007 02:17pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:52pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1