defender putting offense in danger

[SC Official]

The higher you go, the expectation is that you will have a block or a no-call when a defender trying to take a charge is halfway to the ground before he gets touched. The book-based argument is that the defender is violating verticality, which is very controversial on this forum.

There is a difference between bracing for contact, which the rules allow, and what I described above. Call charges on these types of plays and you'll be whacking a lot of coaches and getting calls from your assigner.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

The higher you go, the expectation is that you will have a block or a no-call when a defender trying to take a charge is halfway to the ground before he gets touched. The book-based argument is that the defender is violating verticality, which is very controversial on this forum.

There is a difference between bracing for contact, which the rules allow, and what I described above. Call charges on these types of plays and you'll be whacking a lot of coaches and getting calls from your assigner.

And let me add, players are not halfway to the ground and then absorbing contact. Players who fall early cause 1 of 2 things, they either tangle the feet of the offensive player before elevation or they cause the offensive player to trip over them when the offensive player lands.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Raymond

And let me add, players are not halfway to the ground and then absorbing contact. Players who fall early cause 1 of 2 things, they either tangle the feet of the offensive player before elevation or they cause the offensive player to trip over them when the offensive player lands.

Exactly.

Try explaining a PC foul to a coach after a play like this when the offensive player rolls an ankle.

[JRutledge]

I just saw this recently.

Is this what is being referenced on some level?



Peace

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I just saw this recently.

Is this what is being referenced on some level?



Peace

Yeah, that's an old video clip that does not justify the alleged technical called for "faking being fouled." We need something better than this . . .

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Yeah, that's an old video clip that does not justify the alleged technical called for "faking being fouled." We need something better than this . . .

I agree with the technical foul portion you referenced. This is clearly not "faking a foul," but wondering if that is what some people would think applies to not giving the defender a foul?

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I agree with the technical foul portion you referenced. This is clearly not "faking a foul," but wondering if that is what some people would think applies to not giving the defender a foul?

Peace

That's just a horrible call. The offensive player actually ducked his head all the way down into the defender's midsection.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Raymond

And let me add, players are not halfway to the ground and then absorbing contact. Players who fall early cause 1 of 2 things, they either tangle the feet of the offensive player before elevation or they cause the offensive player to trip over them when the offensive player lands.

If the offensive player wouldn't be going through them then neither of those would happen assuming the player is falling from orginal spot. I'm not arguing whether this should be a pc or not. My point is it makes no logical sense to blame the defensive player bc he/she choose not to stay and absorb the contact the offensive player was going to cause which in turn causes the offensive player to land on the defensive player.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

If the offensive player wouldn't be going through them then neither of those would happen assuming the player is falling from orginal spot. I'm not arguing whether this should be a pc or not. My point is it makes no logical sense to blame the defensive player bc he/she choose not to stay and absorb the contact the offensive player was going to cause which in turn causes the offensive player to land on the defensive player.

Every single supervisor I work for (5 college/2 high school) would expect a defender to be called for a blocking foul if he bails out early and then the offensive players contacts him when returning to the floor.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Every single supervisor I work for (5 college/2 high school) would expect a defender to be called for a blocking foul if he bails out early and then the offensive players contacts him when returning to the floor.

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".

[deecee]

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.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by deecee

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.

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?

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Although by rule it shouldn't be a block assuming defender is legal before the begins falling.

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.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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 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.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Call charges on these types of plays and you'll be whacking a lot of coaches and getting calls from your assigner.

This is not all that common a play. Never whacked a coach over it since '76.

I'm intrigued by those claiming that defenders leaning slightly backward knowing they're gonna get a charge take themselves out of vertical. Would like to see an NFHS ruling on this.