Defender trying to take a charge starting to fall before contact

[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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by 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.

Good point. A tech in this situation, as I mentioned, is more than likely wrong.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[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.

[SC Official]

FWIW, whenever a defender is halfway to the ground before he gets touched, it’s almost always ruled a block in the games I watch on TV. That seems to be the expectation in the college game. And I’m fine with that.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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



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.

You need to read my post closer, because I said using verticality as a reason to call the foul is wrong, while talking in terms of LGP is the way.

Nowhere in the definition of verticality does it mention falling back. Bellying up...extending arms...yes. Why shoehorn in verticality when LGP is all you need?


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

FWIW, whenever a defender is halfway to the ground before he gets touched, it’s almost always ruled a block in the games I watch on TV. That seems to be the expectation in the college game. And I’m fine with that.

That's because college coaches don't like defenders falling down for no reason and causing offensive players to fall over them.

From my experiences it is pretty much standard practice to call blocks in order to clean that up.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

You need to read my post closer, because I said using verticality as a reason to call the foul is wrong, while talking in terms of LGP is the way.

Nowhere in the definition of verticality does it mention falling back. Bellying up...extending arms...yes. Why shoehorn in verticality when LGP is all you need?


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Huh? You're the one that has been arguing that the player violated verticality.

In this case, the player has not violated either verticality or LGP.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Huh? You're the one that has been arguing that the player violated verticality.

In this case, the player has not violated either verticality or LGP.

No... I haven't. But why read?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Player989random]

I'd have to see it in person, because my general rule is that if they are noticeably falling down before contact, it's a block if not a no-call. Otherwise, it's PC.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Player989random

I'd have to see it in person, because my general rule is that if they are noticeably falling down before contact, it's a block if not a no-call. Otherwise, it's PC.

Calling a block on a player not responsible for contact, while maintains lgp, who is attempting to protect him/herself: a) is not supported by rule b) expects players to place your preferred behaviour over their perceived personal safety c) punishes a player who does nothing wrong d) perpetuates stereotypes about fakeing/being soft that are not true and can lead to more reckless physical play.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Calling a block on a player not responsible for contact, while maintains lgp, who is attempting to protect him/herself: a) is not supported by rule b) expects players to place your preferred behaviour over their perceived personal safety c) punishes a player who does nothing wrong d) perpetuates stereotypes about fakeing/being soft that are not true and can lead to more reckless physical play.

e) is the way it’s expected to be called at the higher levels. And I agree with that philosophy.

Falling back before getting touched is not protecting yourself and is not what the rule regarding ducking to absorb imminent contact is intended to allow–it’s flopping and puts the offensive player in a dangerous position.

[so cal lurker]

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.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

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.

Perhaps... I've never seen a ball handler may contact with a defender as they are falling down(more than 10*). Mostly the are slightly leaned back.