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.

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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