defender putting offense in danger

[jeremy341a]

I was reading an old post about falling before contact on a block/charge Why is it when a defender who is legal begins to fall early many people say "he's putting the offense at risk"? I don't understand this theory. Why is the defender required to stand there and get trucked to absorb the energy so the offensive player doesn't hit the floor as hard. IMO opinion the offensive player is the one putting them both at risk. Now if there is still enough contact or his is being placed at a disadvantage enough for a charge that is another argument.

[JRutledge]

I do not think there is a clear answer as I know I do not subscribe to that position. I think people come up with all kinds of reasons to call fouls on defensive players and in their mind, if they are not doing the "perfect" thing then we call fouls on defenders when they do everything legal.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I was reading an old post about falling before contact on a block/charge Why is it when a defender who is legal begins to fall early many people say "he's putting the offense at risk"? I don't understand this theory. Why is the defender required to stand there and get trucked to absorb the energy so the offensive player doesn't hit the floor as hard. IMO opinion the offensive player is the one putting them both at risk. Now if there is still enough contact or his is being placed at a disadvantage enough for a charge that is another argument.

Put simply, it is BS. The defender is not putting anyone at risk. The offense is the one causing contact and putting people at risk.

[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.

[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.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

My play didn't involve leaning "slightly backwards"-it involved a defender who was halfway to the ground before any contact was made by the offensive player. That is not "bracing for contact" in my view, and in the view of higher level assigners and coaches.

I'd like to see an NFHS ruling that says defenders who barely get touched because they don't want to take the contact should be rewarded with a PC foul.

[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

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[BillyMac]

(Note: Old citation reference numbers.)

Relevant rules and caseplay:

4-23-3: After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne,
provided he/she has inbound status.
b. The guard is not required to continue facing the opponent.
c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it
is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.
d. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane.
e. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact.

It doesn't directly say it, but I'm pretty sure that the guard may back up.

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 …

Confucius says, "There's a difference between being tripped, and tripping".

4-23-1: Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

10.6.1 SITUATION E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

(Note: In regard to players on the floor, I believe that the college "tripping/tripped" rule is different than the high school rule.)