Defender trying to take a charge starting to fall before contact

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by deecee

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.

This is why I would propose changing the rules in the book. FIBA allows for a "flop warning" to be issued to a team, with subsequent flops being penalized with a technical foul. This allows for flopping to be initially addressed without having to call a technical foul. NFHS and NCAA would be well-served here in taking a page out of the FIBA book.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

It took me a year-and-a-half, but I finally tracked down the source of this citation.

I hope that you didn't lose any sleep over this.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

This is why I would propose changing the rules in the book. FIBA allows for a "flop warning" to be issued to a team, with subsequent flops being penalized with a technical foul. This allows for flopping to be initially addressed without having to call a technical foul. NFHS and NCAA would be well-served here in taking a page out of the FIBA book.

I actually find the flop warning counter productive. I don't often use it but some of my peers regularly use it to curb the sorts of behaviours being talked about on this thread (kids leaning, falling early, bailing out to minimize or avoid contact, etc).Which aren't actually illegal. And I feel like it causes more conversations then it solves problems.

If it's not something you would T up on its own, then you probably shouldn't be bringing it up at all. Imagine warning a coach/player for flopping then the sort of convos we have had on this thread happening in your game (I am allowed to protect myself, she is allowed to move back/down/turn, he doesn't have to get run over, etc). Now you have a disagreement over rules applications that officials can't agree on, and have warned a coach/player if they don't agree with your interp next time they push their luck its a T.

However if you wouldn't have T'd it previously (just waved a kid up, said stay up longer, ignored it) then you have now painted yourself and your partner into a corner of T'ing the next time you see it regardless.

[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 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.

Nothing said the player was laying on the floor...they were in the process of falling back, not laying down. There was such a play in the FF (don't remember which game, but it was with about 8:30 left in the half). The player was clearly falling away by the time contact occurred. The announcers talked about the play in general and Stratore confirmed that it was the correct call without saying a word about falling back being a problem.

Either way, LGP isn't actually necessary to have a PCF.

In addition, the NFHS has, by declaration in a case play, said that a player laying down does have a "legal" position....noting that having a legal position on the floor doesn't mean a player has LGP. Nothing about the rules prohibit dangerous positions...the offense is always putting people in dangerous positions by jumping at defenders.

[Freddy]

I wasn't so much interested in reopening the topic, only tracking down that unsourced caseplay.
Anyhow, here's the play that prompted my search:
Charge While Though Leaning Back
And here's the old casebook that disappeared that, at least at one time anyway, distinguished NFHS from NCAA-M who has their own caseplay to determine it contrarywise:
10.6.1 SITUATION E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

[Raymond]

I wouldn't qualify that as falling before contact. There was a slight lean.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I wouldn't qualify that as falling before contact. There was a slight lean.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I assume you're talking about the play I referenced above. You might not, but I've seen identical plays discussed here in the past and several said they'd go with a block for that very reason.