Defender trying to take a charge starting to fall before contact

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

What is to discuss? You said A1 ran over B1 when B1 had LGP.

50+ replies later, and the first one is still the best one (the one I agree with most)

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by deecee

Noone is saying that a defender has to take 100% of the hit and/or has to be 90% perpendicular. The video above is a clear PC.

There are very clear examples in games where a defender starts falling so early that the contact, although would have been a PC in most cases had the defender "manned up", bails so early they are usually about 1/3 - 1/2 of the way down when contact occurs.

I'm sorry but I would go with a no call or block if i HAD to make a call 100% of the time on those calls.

If it would have been PC if he'd "manned up" it can't ever be correct to call a block. No calls are fine. Often the falling back reduces the contact to incidental. But the defender isn't doing anything to lose his LGP by falling back.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

If it would have been PC if he'd "manned up" it can't ever be correct to call a block. No calls are fine. Often the falling back reduces the contact to incidental. But the defender isn't doing anything to lose his LGP by falling back.

I'm sorry but there is a point that it's just flopping and no way in hell am I calling a PC or a no call. Although a T is a bit harsh. The happy medium is a block.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by deecee

I'm sorry but there is a point that it's just flopping and no way in hell am I calling a PC or a no call. Although a T is a bit harsh. The happy medium is a block.

No, it's not a happy medium. If it's a flop, T it. If it's not enough contact for a PC, no call it. But by calling a block, you are wrong. And you're making it harder for everyone else who has to referee after you who actually observes the rules.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

No, it's not a happy medium. If it's a flop, T it. If it's not enough contact for a PC, no call it. But by calling a block, you are wrong. And you're making it harder for everyone else who has to referee after you who actually observes the rules.

Unfortunately the penalty is to harsh and for the most part not accepted among peers. There hav been other examples of this and the fed has changed the penalty. They should do that here. I'm not going to swim upstream a block will suffice.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

I'm sorry but there is a point that it's just flopping and no way in hell am I calling a PC or a no call. Although a T is a bit harsh. The happy medium is a block.

Had such a call last Friday. Easily explainable to my supervisor if he were to ask.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Had such a call last Friday. Easily explainable to my supervisor if he were to ask.

You called a T?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

You called a T?

No, the happy medium.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Raymond

No, the happy medium.

Yup. I knew what you meant. And, yup.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Rich

Yup. I knew what you meant. And, yup.

The 2 of you are making it harder for the guys that have to officiate after you...

[SC Official]

We can disagree all we want on what the rules say this is technically supposed to be treated as. But the expectation at the higher levels is that you do not reward the defense for this type of action (yes, it is flopping). That is the expectation of most coaches and supervisors, whether you think it's fair or not.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by SC Official

We can disagree all we want on what the rules say this is technically supposed to be treated as. But the expectation at the higher levels is that you do not reward the defense for this type of action (yes, it is flopping). That is the expectation of most coaches and supervisors, whether you think it's fair or not.

I don't think anyone actually disagrees with what this is supposed to be treated as. Most people are suggesting that it should be treated as a block instead because their isn't sufficient support for actually calling the technical.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by deecee

I'm sorry but there is a point that it's just flopping and no way in hell am I calling a PC or a no call. Although a T is a bit harsh. The happy medium is a block.

As a spectator at a high school boys varsity game, I once seen a kid throw himself into the wall 3 feet out of bounds without contact from the offense. I consider that sort of behavior a "flop". A technical foul was called.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I don't think anyone actually disagrees with what this is supposed to be treated as. Most people are suggesting that it should be treated as a block instead because their isn't sufficient support for actually calling the technical.

It's not even that. There are cases that even if you can support your call with the rulebook you won't get much push back. You will just get the label as "that guy". Assignors at the college level (at least the levels I have worked) don't like having to answer coaches consistently about the same guy over and over again. Even if you are right by the rule you are more of a headache for the assignor.

I'm not saying if you do this once or maybe twice it will cost you but if there is a pattern that you are more trouble that you are worth then so be it. That's up to your judgement on how you want to adjudicate certain plays. That dictates the direction, as an official, you will move.

The rules for an official change once they "make it" but that's like a handful of guys in the country. At one point they were in this same spot and there are rules and there are expectations. For the most part (I'd say 95% or more) the rules and expectations walk hand in hand. But there are some areas that they split up.

I used to think "just call it by the book", and I will advise newer officials to do so, however I have tried to be less dogmatic in my approach and deal with the situation based on the level.

The higher up the more "by the book" I work, also taking into account local tradition, expectation, assignors expectation, etc.

If you are starting off or trying to move up and you are faced with a dilemma the safest way to tackle it is by the book.

[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.