Defender trying to take a charge starting to fall before contact

[WhistlesAndStripes]

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.

[Camron Rust]

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

[WhistlesAndStripes]

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

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??

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.

[Raymond]

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

[deecee]

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

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

[ballgame99]

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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Falling back is not part of verticality.

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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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. .

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.

[Smitty]

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?

[SNIPERBBB]

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

[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