defender putting offense in danger

[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.

[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.)

[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?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

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?

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

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? ...

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

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?

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.