Defender trying to take a charge starting to fall before contact
 

NFHS Rules:

A1 is driving down on a fast break. B1 is out ahead of her gets legal guarding position in approximately the middle of the left lane line. As A1 approaches B1, full speed ahead, B1 begins falling backward BEFORE there is any contact from A1. A1 then runs over the top of B1 in an attempt to make a layup.

Discuss.

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

Ok, I want to hear the theories about “faking being fouled”. There is no reason why B1 should be “falling backward” prior to any contact. She has now given up her verticality.

Thoughts??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That isn't what verticality means. Falling forward (into the opponent's space) would be giving up verticality.

The rule explicitly states that B1 can turn or duck to lessen the impact or protect themselves. Falling back is exactly that. It is not wanting to get your teeth knocked out just to draw a charge.

The only way I'm entertaining any idea of 'faking' is if they fling themselves back to make it look like they were hit harder than they were (if at all). Even then, it would be a very high bar to call it a fake.

I don't think falling down is the same as ducking or turning.

I guess I define turning, falling, and ducking very differently since they are completely different words.

Me either. And I consider it a poor practice to reward it as it can be dangerous for both players.

Ahhh, the ol' "take it like a man" rule. If the player is leaning back to absorb imminent contact I am not going to hold that against them. If the leaning back (ie lack of verticality?) is what CAUSES the contact, meaning if they had stayed strait up the ballhandler would have been able to avoid the contact, then we are having a different conversation. But if an offensive player trucks a defender who has established LGP but happens to be falling back to absorb that contact I am punching it and not thinking twice.

While we are on the subject, wouldn't "ducking" (ie leaning forward and putting your head down) actually constitute a lack of verticality and create a very unsafe situation here? It really makes no sense in this rule.

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.

Now, if you want to say falling back is a way to way to "absorb the shock of imminent impact", and falls under the "turn or duck" part of rule 4-23... okay. Not sure I agree, but that's a lot better than telling us that falling backwards is part of verticality.

Personally, I think this can be deemed an unsporting act, as the defender may be flopping, which is grounds for a tech. Notice I said "can be", since you'll have to decide based on being there and seeing it. Or maybe from prior activity such as this defender being known as a flopper, and trying to get calls earlier in the game, or hearing about it from other officials from previous games.

I can't find one in the new case book (my old ones are stored away right now), but I would think there's something that covers this play. Help?

Falling backwards isn't part of the verticality rule, but it also doesn't violate the verticality rule. The rules for maintaining a legal guarding position say that a player is allowed to move backwards after establishing that legal position. Falling back is obviously moving backwards, so this is legal.

Whether you should reward it by calling the PC foul is another question. But I don't want people to start thinking that moving backwards is necessarily illegal.

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.

Hmmm, ok, I guess I can see your point. I may have been reading too quickly earlier. I got hung up on LGP and glossed over your actual point. My bad.

But verticality with respect to a block/charge play is really irrelevant in that it would only come into play if the player falling back fell into someone else, fouling the other player. The player he is falling back from is also not vertical and so what difference does verticality make here?

If the dribbler cant avoid a player falling away from him/her, he/she really deserves the PC call.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

That is what you keep arguing.....your words saying the player didn't have verticality....

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?

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

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

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.

It was sent out last season by one of our local officials' associations in St. Louis. I will see if I can track down the ultimate source.

If you do a search of this forum, the situation of this play was posted here in January of this year...

Fair enough, it sure looked like you were saying the player didn't have verticality, not that it didn't matter.

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.

My son is a small high school player. He easily led his team in taking charges but was only about 50-50 on blocks/charges. Some he never established legal position but others were bc he fell back a bit bc he weighed 115lbs last year. The one time he stood still and took the entire shot he was knocked to the floor hit his head and blacked out. So just something to consider when you guys think kid has to "man up" to take a charge.

I find reasons to call charges, not the other way around. Most of the time they are trying to take a charge, I give it to them unless there is some reason they clearly are not there. But I default to the defender if I am going guess and most of the time I see the play anyway. Makes the game so much better. So slightly falling is not something I worry about as the rules allow for them to duck and brace for contact.

Peace

When a player takes the solid contact he has a better chance of bouncing off.. landing on bottom..with head off of the floor. The player who starts falling early pretty much is guaranteeing that the other player will land on top of him. good chance head bounces a few times on court. taking it the proper way is much safer than starting to fall to soon.

Are we talking about a play like this?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cfExjzsTNHU" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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.

Actually, at the time of contact, he is leaning back. It isn't dramatic, but his body is not straight up. It is about 10-15 degrees away from perfectly vertical.

I don't understand the theory that the defense is putting the offense in danger. Why should the defense be required to absorb 100% of the force the offense is creating.

Although not normally thought of as backwards the definition of duck does not state a direction

duck2
dək/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: ducking
1.
lower the head or the body quickly to avoid a blow or so as not to be seen.
"spectators ducked for cover"

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.

That is ultimately semantics, he knows he is getting run the (bleep) over when the contact took place.

Peace

I agree...was being sarcastic.

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

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.

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.

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

You called a T?

No, the happy medium.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sticktoitiveness ...
 

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP._...=0&w=298&h=169

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

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.

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.

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.

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.