Defender trying to take a charge starting to fall before contact

[Camron Rust]

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.

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.

[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

[Camron Rust]

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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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