What year was this casebook play published? Case 10.6.1 Situation E is not in my current casebook. I agree with this interpretation while others that I know do not.

Is It Still A Casebook Play ???
 

Very sharp observation DrPete. This is yet another "The Case Of the Unannounced Disappearing For No Known Reason Casebook Play". No apparent rule change. No NFHS announcement. No replacement caseplay. No new interpretation. No NFHS cancellation of the old interpretation. How are young officials without old archived casebooks supposed know this interpretation?

If a casebook play falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, is it still a casebook play?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...llen_tree2.jpg

I'm not debating whether this should be a blocking foul or not. Although by rule it shouldn't be a block assuming defender is legal before the begins falling. I get it still falls under that's a block bc the way it always has been logic. I'm debating the argument that the defender is somehow putting the offense at risk. If the offensive wouldn't be taking a path that goes through a vertical defender then there wouldn't be contact if the defender falls. It shouldn't be the defenders responsibility to adsorb the energy of the offensive player to make the collision less "dangerous".

Contact with a vertical defender is less risky than a defender that is falling or fallen. If you have played basketball you know this (not sure what your experience is honestly). Just because the contact was inevitable doesn't mean that severity of contact remains constant.

Can you cite a rule that shows this?

If you as a defender are not going to take the contact then shame on you. The rules allow you to brace for imminent contact; they don’t allow you to bail out by essentially trust-falling and still get a PC foul.

I agree to this. My question is why should the defense be required to get trucked so that the offensive player is at less risk for injury? The proper basketball play when a defender is on their heals is to stop and pull up for the short jumper not run over them in hopes of getting a blocking foul. When the offense commits to their actions they don't know the defender will begin falling early. Why encourage the offensive player to keep making a poor basketball play that also encourages collisions?

I only have a old book in front of me so this may have changed?

In the definition of charging it says of a player who is moving with the ball is required to stop or change direction to avoid contact if a defensive player has obtained a LGP in his/her path.

If a guard has obtained a LGP, the player with the ball must get his/her head and shoulders past the torso of the defensive player. If contact occurs on the torso of the defensive player, the dribbler is responsible for the contact.

So the opponent falling doesn't change the fact that they are not going to do either of these things.

Under the guarding definition once LGP is established the guard isn't required to keep facing his opponent, may move any direction that isn't towards his opponent. It also says may turn around or duck to absorb the contact.

duck2
dək/Submit
verb
verb: duck; 3rd person present: ducks; past tense: ducked; past participle: ducked; gerund or present participle: ducking
1.
lower the head or the body quickly to avoid a blow

So by written rule the defender can turn around backwards, lower the head or body quickly (note doesn't say which way) to absorb contact, can legally move backwards but can not move backwards while falling?

What rule is being violated that makes this a block? I understand that to some "that's the way it should be" "that's the way it has always been argument. However it's not rules based.

Your original statement is "If you as a defender are not going to take the contact then shame on you." Why? They are not required by rule to do so? If you as an official or going to punish them based on some old beliefs and not rules than I would say shame on you. Could it turn a PC into a no call? I would say yes but to call it a block bc that's the way its always been isn't right. If your area/assignors want that it be called a block I would call it too and don't blame you for doing it but that doesn't make it rules based.

they can brace themselves. However "trucked" isn't a concern nor in the rulebook. Contact is contact, and some is more severe based on many factors, of which the rules don't concern themselves.

Trucked isn't in the rule book but it is in the defenders head. "This is going to hurt" Therefore he can perform many legal actions bc he doesn't want to take the full contact. These include turning, ducking(lowering of head or body, could argue that falling a form of falling as he would be lowering his head and body away) or moving away from the defender. What rule does he violate by falling away?

If the defender is falling prior to contact, how does that contact put him at a disadvantage? How is it illegal?

I agree if he falls back an excessive amount it could change a PC to a no call but should not be a block by rule.

That's great that you feel that way, but the reality is that whether or not you or anyone thinks you can have a block by rule, that is the expectation at higher levels.

This is not a basketball play. Take the contact, contest the shot, or get out of the way. I refuse to believe that PC foul rules intend to reward defenders who bail on taking a real charge.

You're right. The defender shouldn't have to just take it to draw the charge. Saying this is a danger to the offense is just an excuse to penalize a defender without support in the rules. For that matter, the offense put themselves at risk by going into a defender that was legally in their path. The offense has the choice to go or not go. The fact that a defender fades back early doesn't change the fact that the offensive player chose to go into a path that was already legally taken away.

Falling away, by simple physics, reduces the impact, not increases it. If we were truly worried about someone getting hurt, we'd call all similar actions offensive even if the defense were not legal since the offense is almost always the one creating the contact. That would stop offensive players from driving into opponents.

Jeremy, you are right. It may well turn it to a no-call, but there is no reason to make it a block when the defender legally obtained the spot and only faded back a little because they didn't want to get killed.

This is, however, entirely different than a defender throwing themselves back in an attempt to try to convince you there was a charge when there isn't.

Still, there is no justification for a block.

Technical Foul ...
 

Agree. Technical foul.

Never called it myself. I've never seen it called. But it's on my referee tool belt if I need it. I have warned players a few times, but didn't pull the pin on the technical foul.

10-3-6-F: A player shall not: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as: Faking being fouled …

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.I...=0&w=264&h=162