Defender trying to take a charge starting to fall before contact

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Rich

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

I understand this. I just think the first priority is not making an actively incorrect call. Which is what I think calling a block is here.

If we really wanted to get rid of flopping, we'd start calling Ts, but I realize that has to be a collective, directed effort.

[ballgame99]

Are we talking about a play like this?



Or one where the defender has fallen back to a 45 degree angle? If we are talking about the play above I would love for someone to tell me this isn't a PC all day everyday.

Video creds to JRut.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Are we talking about a play like this?



Or one where the defender has fallen back to a 45 degree angle? If we are talking about the play above I would love for someone to tell me this isn't a PC all day everyday.

Video creds to JRut.

The defender didn't prematurely fall back in this play. In fact, he didn't even lean back.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Rich

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

This may be the grey area being discussed. But in my mind flopping is falling when no contact occurs.IMO Leaning or falling away to prevent or minimize the amount of contact is not a flop. If they fall and no contact occurs you can make your judgement on whether they fell to buy a call or just misjudged the amount of contact coming or the ability of the offense to stop.

I'm just not comfortable a) rewarding the offense with foul calls for running into people and b) asking kids to take the full force of a shot to body or head while either bracing them selves or getting driven to the floor from a full height when that is not the intent of the rule.

The OP is talking about a kid who is going to get trucked no matter what. asking them to take that foul shot standing is the equivalent IMO of asking a kid to get hit by a swinging elbow to the head before we do something about the swinging elbow.