Defender trying to take a charge starting to fall before contact

[SC Official]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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....

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

[Raymond]

I wouldn't qualify that as falling before contact. There was a slight lean.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I wouldn't qualify that as falling before contact. There was a slight lean.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I assume you're talking about the play I referenced above. You might not, but I've seen identical plays discussed here in the past and several said they'd go with a block for that very reason.