defender putting offense in danger

[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.