defender putting offense in danger
 

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Exactly.

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

I just saw this recently.

Is this what is being referenced on some level?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UU_0GrEMvv8" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

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.

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

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.

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

Let's Go To The Videotape ......
 

(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.)

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

Old Casebook Plays Never Die, They Just Fade Away …
 

With apologies to General Douglas MacArthur.

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.

Last appeared in the 2004-05 NFHS casebook. And then, Penn and Teller made it disappear.

Is a fourteen year old casebook play still relevant? Does the interpretation still stand if the NFHS hasn't published it (nor have they published a retraction) for fourteen years? Inquiring minds want to know.

How are young officials without old archived casebooks supposed know this interpretation? By the oral tradition of young basketball officials sitting around a campfire listening to stories about old casebook plays from old, grizzled, veteran officials (like Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.)?

I do not give a darn about old interpretations. They cannot put it somewhere, it does not matter to me personally. I really do not see the obsession over them anyway.

Peace

the defensive player although obtaining LGP is changing their position on an airborne shooter after they have left the floor without contact .. the offensive player has a right to land without contact so landing on the defense makes it a block I think

Where you you get the idea that the defensive player can not change position?

Super late to the party and this is pet peeve of mine but here is my stance in a nutshell.

1) If the defender has LGP then can move sideways or backward and maintain LGP. The way in which they move sideways or backwards is up to them so if they choose to fall backwards ok.

2) We all know they all allowed to duck or turn/twist to protect themselves but I would bet my next pay check that 90% of the time in High school and lower level games when a kid twists, turns or ducks in response to the imminent contact its getting called a block.

3) In the world of concussions kids/parents/coaches are not soft for wanting controlled falls. If its not a charge thats fine but you can't (IMO) call a block or a tech because a kid doesn't want to get hit or hit hard. If it becomes a no call you can have your reasons.

4) Only way this should be a foul of any kind is if kid is falling or throwing themselves at the ground without any contact or chance of contact severe enough to displace them AND acting like they've been trucked AND being indignant about the lack of call - this can be a tech. OR if the offensive player changes their path and the defender falls anyway into a path they didn't have LGP for you can call the block ie. Defender A sets their LGP in the path B1 sidesteps and defender falls with no contact anyway but falls across the landing area or new path where they didn't have LGP.

I am intrigued by this opinion and would be interested in the rules basis for it.

I would agree that the offensive player has the right to land without contact IF the defender was not already in the path before the offensive player jumped. That is a fundamental part of LGP. Perhaps that is what he meant.

Statute Of Limitations ...
 

I can certainly understand JRutledge's point, especially in regard to how a new official gets exposure to an interpretation that isn't presently published somewhere, anywhere, in any current official NFHS document.

However, the NFHS does this to us all the time.

Annual NFHS interpretations are publicized for a single year and then disappear from subsequent official NFHS documents (good example: 2009-10 SITUATION 11, An Obvious Timing Mistake Corrected). Happens every year. Does this mean that single year NFHS annual interpretations (assuming there are no subsequent relevant NFHS rule changes, no subsequent relevant NFHS retractions, or no subsequent relevant revised NFHS annual interpretations) subsequently become null and void?

Annual NFHS Points of Emphasis (good example: 2012-13, Contact Above The Shoulders) may be publicized for a single year (sometimes they reappear) and then often disappear from subsequent official NFHS documents. Happens all the time. Does this mean that single year NFHS Points of Emphasis (assuming there are no subsequent relevant NFHS rule changes, no subsequent relevant NFHS retractions, or no subsequent relevant revised NFHS interpretations) subsequently become null and void?

NFHS Casebook Plays sometimes disappear, unannounced, unpublicized, for no apparent reason other than to possibly save space, at which point they then disappear from subsequent official NFHS documents (good example: 2004-05 NFHS Casebook, 10.6.1 SITUATION E, Player On Floor). Does this mean that a NFHS Casebook Play that disappears, unannounced, unpublicized, for no apparent reason (assuming there are no subsequent relevant NFHS rule changes, no subsequent relevant NFHS retractions, or no subsequent relevant revised NFHS Casebook Plays) subsequently become null and void?

Yes, I know that it's very difficult, possibly impossible, for a new official to get exposure to an old annual interpretation, old Point of Emphasis, or old casebook play, that isn't presently published somewhere, anywhere, in any current official NFHS document, but I don't believe that it's appropriate for those of us who are veterans, who have been to many rodeos, who have been around the block many times, who know these old interpretations, to pretend that they never existed, to ignore them, and to rule contrary to them (assuming there are no subsequent relevant NFHS rule changes, subsequent NFHS retractions, or subsequent revised NFHS interpretations).

The stupid NFHS does this to us all the time.

Kinda what I meant .. if a defender obtains LGP and then falls back prematurely wont they more than likely move their feet somewhat backwards as well? thus moving positions AFTER the offense left the floor

with new POE on verticality does that play into this play as well .. player losing verticality

I am having issues with this play as well. I want to be able to chirp it to a coach as to the reason play was called and it is not simple.

You seem to be stuck on the concept of the defender moving. Forget that. It is leading you to the wrong conclusion. Nothing in the rules says the defender can't move at all after the offense left the floor. Judging by that criteria will lead you to penalize a legal defender.

It does, however, say the defender must have LGP (in the path, two feet down, facing) before the offense jumps. It also says that the defender may move laterally or obliquely away after obtaining LGP. So, if a defender has to move sideways after the offense jumps in order to be in a position to take contact, that means they were NOT in the path and, by definition, didn't have LGP when the shooter jumped. Call it a block.

However, if a defender has LGP at the time of the jump and is in a position such that the offense is already going to hit them and they move laterally (slightly, position adjusting, but not into the path) or backwards and the offense still hits them, they have met the requirements of getting a legal position. Nothing they have done is wrong and can't commit a block. Note that having LGP also does not require the defender to continue to have two feet down or continue to face the opponent. They may be stepping, jumping, turning, etc. all while having LGP previously obtained.


As for verticality, that is about extending part of your body outside of your plane into the space of an opponent or jumping towards your opponent, not extending something away from your opponent. It is violating the vertical plane marked by the front of your established position.

thanks!

so your call is ...

coach inquires your quick answer is ...

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

Short And Sweet ...
 

"Coach. The defender was in initial legal guarding position and didn't move toward the offensive player. The defender is entitled to a position on the court even if the defender is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down. The defender made no attempt to trip the offensive player. A player accidentally tripping is not the same as player being intentionally tripped. Also, I did not believe that the defender faked being fouled."

"And, yes Coach, I agree with you, I do look like George Clooney's identical twin."

Of course, if I'm short on patience, I could just simply give him the famous quote by that ancient, basketball official, Confucius, "There's a difference between being tripped, and tripping".

If the defender is moving away from the offensive player and there is contact, he has not committed a foul whether he had previously had legal guarding position or not.

2018-19 Point Of Emphasis ...
 

Good point, but I wanted to "Blind The Coach With Professionalism And Excessive Proper Terminology Verbiage" (legal guarding position) and leave him dumbfounded, sobbing, and quaking in his shoes. Coaches hate it when I do that to them. On the other hand, I love it.

(With apologies to Thomas Dolby)

(just another ref: Thanks for not correcting the part where the coach thinks that I look like George Clooney's identical twin.)