Defender trying to take a charge starting to fall before contact

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That isn't what verticality means. Falling forward (into the opponent's space) would be giving up verticality.

The rule explicitly states that B1 can turn or duck to lessen the impact or protect themselves. Falling back is exactly that. It is not wanting to get your teeth knocked out just to draw a charge.

The only way I'm entertaining any idea of 'faking' is if they fling themselves back to make it look like they were hit harder than they were (if at all). Even then, it would be a very high bar to call it a fake.

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.

Now, if you want to say falling back is a way to way to "absorb the shock of imminent impact", and falls under the "turn or duck" part of rule 4-23... okay. Not sure I agree, but that's a lot better than telling us that falling backwards is part of verticality.

Personally, I think this can be deemed an unsporting act, as the defender may be flopping, which is grounds for a tech. Notice I said "can be", since you'll have to decide based on being there and seeing it. Or maybe from prior activity such as this defender being known as a flopper, and trying to get calls earlier in the game, or hearing about it from other officials from previous games.

I can't find one in the new case book (my old ones are stored away right now), but I would think there's something that covers this play. Help?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Falling back is not part of verticality.

Falling backwards isn't part of the verticality rule, but it also doesn't violate the verticality rule. The rules for maintaining a legal guarding position say that a player is allowed to move backwards after establishing that legal position. Falling back is obviously moving backwards, so this is legal.

Whether you should reward it by calling the PC foul is another question. But I don't want people to start thinking that moving backwards is necessarily illegal.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Falling backwards isn't part of the verticality rule, but it also doesn't violate the verticality rule. The rules for maintaining a legal guarding position say that a player is allowed to move backwards after establishing that legal position. Falling back is obviously moving backwards, so this is legal.

Whether you should reward it by calling the PC foul is another question. But I don't want people to start thinking that moving backwards is necessarily illegal.

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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. .

Hmmm, ok, I guess I can see your point. I may have been reading too quickly earlier. I got hung up on LGP and glossed over your actual point. My bad.

[Smitty]

But verticality with respect to a block/charge play is really irrelevant in that it would only come into play if the player falling back fell into someone else, fouling the other player. The player he is falling back from is also not vertical and so what difference does verticality make here?

[SNIPERBBB]

If the dribbler cant avoid a player falling away from him/her, he/she really deserves the PC call.

[bondguy]

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

[Pantherdreams]

Players may protect themselves and may move backwards and mainting lgp. How they protect themselves and what they move backwards at what time are up to them. We just enforce the rules.

In a era where contact sports, concussions, child health and well being are under ever increased scrutiny if a kid is falling before contact or going to ground to absorb contact in a controlled fall I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and just call the PC.

In your scenario the PC is clearly happening and player is going to get trucked so I'm fine with it. If player is falling and offense manages to stop short or in a way where the contact wouldn't have required them being struck hard/knocked back/down I would just have a no call and give them the universal get up hand gesture.

They are allowed to protect themselves.

They are allowed to move backwards.

Penalizing this in anyway (beyond a no call) IMO is encouraging players to put themselves unnecessarily in harms way beyond the intent of the rule. Last thing I want is offense going harder and out of control because players who won't risk brain damage or physical injury can't get into LGP.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bondguy

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?

[hamnegger]

My son is a small high school player. He easily led his team in taking charges but was only about 50-50 on blocks/charges. Some he never established legal position but others were bc he fell back a bit bc he weighed 115lbs last year. The one time he stood still and took the entire shot he was knocked to the floor hit his head and blacked out. So just something to consider when you guys think kid has to "man up" to take a charge.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bondguy

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

For anyone interested . . .
It took me a year-and-a-half, but I finally tracked down the source of this citation. It was Caseplay #38 on p.121 of the REFEREE SPECIAL EDITION PREP BASKETBALL 2017-18.

[rbruno]

Feel like falling backwards "before" contact is flopping. AND how can she have maintained LGP when her backside is on the floor? Being on the floor is placing the offensive player and herself in a dangerous position. How can this be a PCF? I have a block all the way.

[Camron Rust]

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.

Verticality is about moving into or extending part of your body into your opponents vertical space by not being vertical. Falling away is the opposite of violating verticality. It is neither moving into your opponents vertical space or extending any part of your body (e.g., arms) into a space you didn't have right to such that it leads to contact. In falling back, all of the movement by the defender is only reducing contact, not creating it or making it worse.

Now, if the opponent were behind the defender, falling backwards would be a violation verticality.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Verticality is about moving into or extending part of your body into your opponents vertical space by not being vertical. Falling away is the opposite of violating verticality. It is neither moving into your opponents vertical space or extending any part of your body (e.g., arms) into a space you didn't have right to such that it leads to contact. In falling back, all of the movement by the defender is only reducing contact, not creating it or making it worse.

Now, if the opponent were behind the defender, falling backwards would be a violation verticality.

I don't know what definition of verticality you're reading, but it's not there one in the rule book.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I don't know what definition of verticality you're reading, but it's not there one in the rule book.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

OK, what part of the verticality rule is a player leaning back violating if you think they are violating it?

SECTION 45 VERTICALITY
Verticality applies to a legal position. Following are the basic components of the principle of verticality:
ART. 1 . . . Legal guarding position must be obtained initially and movement thereafter must be legal.
ART. 2 . . . From this position, the defender may rise or jump vertically and occupy the space within his/her vertical plane.
ART. 3 . . . The hands and arms of the defender may be raised within his/her vertical plane while on the floor or in the air.
ART. 4 . . . The defender should not be penalized for leaving the floor vertically or having his/her hands and arms extended within his/her vertical plane.
ART. 5 . . . The offensive player whether on the floor or airborne, may not “clear out” or cause contact within the defender’s vertical plane which is a foul.
ART. 6 . . . The defender may not “belly up” or use the lower part of the body or arms to cause contact outside his/her vertical plane which is a foul.
ART. 7 . . . The player with the ball is to be given no more protection or consideration than the defender in judging which player has violated the rules.

If you UNDERSTAND what verticality is about, you'll realize that leaning back has nothing to do with violating verticality. What it IS about is allowing a defender in LGP to execute movement which may appear to cause contact (by jumping up into a shooter's arms, e.g.) without it being a foul....that the defender isn't allowed to extend part of his/her body into the opponent from an otherwise legal position.