Block/Charge

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

If there's no contact then there's no reason for any whistle. If B1's on the floor & he does trip A1 guess what? We got a foul on B1 due to illegal contact. Simple.

If the kid continues to fall without contact he's most likely going to want to know why I didn't have a whistle. And I'll remind him he is getting nothing for a flop. If he's smart he'll stop flopping, if not it's up to his coach to remind him that he can't play effectively while lying on his @ss in the paint. BTW, this goes for shooters who like to flop as well.

I don't think I've ever had to tell a kid more than twice to not flop.

If there is no contact, that is all the MORE reason to call it.

First it does fall under unsporting conduct for a T, second it is extremely dangerous if it happens under the basket. If it is a flop it's a block.

[FHSUref]

Rich & Jurassic

Thanks for the input. I truly appreciate it!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra
[/B]

If there is no contact, that is all the MORE reason to call it.

First it does fall under unsporting conduct for a T, second it is extremely dangerous if it happens under the basket. If it is a flop it's a block.

[/B][/QUOTE]And what if the defender didn't do it deliberately? Also, can't the defender protect themself, as per rule 4-23-3? If there's any doubt in your mind about "intent" on this play, you shouldn't be handing out T's. See casebook play 10.6.1SitE. I just don't think that you can make a "one call fits all circumstances" statement on this type of play.


[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 23rd, 2004 at 06:25 PM]

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

If there is no contact, that is all the MORE reason to call it.

First it does fall under unsporting conduct for a T, second it is extremely dangerous if it happens under the basket. If it is a flop it's a block.

[/B]

And what if the defender didn't do it deliberately? Also, can't the defender protect themself, as per rule 4-23-3? If there's any doubt in your mind about "intent" on this play, you shouldn't be handing out T's. See casebook play 10.6.1SitE. I just don't think that you can make a "one call fits all circumstances" statement on this type of play.


[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 23rd, 2004 at 06:25 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]

Read that last line again, "If it is a FLOP it is a BLOCK."
Flops are by definition deliberate, I really can't see a player falling in the path of an opponent as a means of protection, so how many different circumstances can there be?

I also never said I'd call a T, I said it falls under a T in the rule book. Most officials I know will call it a block when it occurs in the lane.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

And what if the defender didn't do it deliberately? Also, can't the defender protect themself, as per rule 4-23-3? If there's any doubt in your mind about "intent" on this play, you shouldn't be handing out T's. See casebook play 10.6.1SitE. I just don't think that you can make a "one call fits all circumstances" statement on this type of play.


[/B]

Read that last line again, "If it is a FLOP it is a BLOCK."
Flops are by definition deliberate, I really can't see a player falling in the path of an opponent as a means of protection, so how many different circumstances can there be?

I also never said I'd call a T, I said it falls under a T in the rule book. Most officials I know will call it a block when it occurs in the lane.

[/B][/QUOTE]You are completely going against the rules if you call an automatic block on a defender who has obtained a legal guarding position and then flops. There is no rule in the book that will allow you to legally make that call. "Deliberate" has no bearing on the call either. A defender is allowed to protect themself, by rule, from a charge. Yes, you can call a T if you feel that the defender has faked a foul without contact. Other than that, you have to use the direction of the rule book to ascertain whether it should be a block or a charge- NOT just because the defender "flopped".

Most officials I know call this play using the concept of whether or not the defender had a legal guarding position when the contact occurred- and if there is not much contact, to just pass on a call.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by blindzebra



Flops are by definition deliberate, I really can't see a player falling in the path of an opponent as a means of protection, so how many different circumstances can there be?

If you judge this to be deliberate why not call an intentional foul?

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser


By rule it is a T on the flopper, yes, but by practice many officials will simply call a block on the kid flopping.

--Rich

In fact, it is a difficult call.

First you have to decide that the kid is really flopping and not simply bracing for contact that never really comes.

The truth is, I like Dan's response the best (no call -- and if necessary a foul on the defense if the flop causes subsequent contact).

--Rich

I agree with the second far more than the first statement. The rule really is that if you flop to buy the call, it should be a T. The difficulty is one of knowing the intent. As hard as players come in these days, you teach defenders to absorb the charge by going down on their butt at first contact. You do not wait until the offensive player has made enough contact to force you down or you will dramatically increasethe odds of getting injured. This really means timing your fall to coincide with the contact when a player approches at high speed.

If you anticipate contact that never comes, you will probably go down with no contact. And this is where the question of intent comes in. Did you go down anticipating the contact and you were merely ensuring you didn't get hurt, or did you go down because there was no contact but you wanted to draw the charge anyway. In more than 90% of the cases I see, it is the former. You usually see the latter in end-of-game situations where a team is behind and despaerately trying to get the ball. And I am not sure that this is the time to become a mind reader

[cmathews]

Hawks Coach
While I do understand your reasoning behind "teaching" kids to go down at slight contact I don't agree with it. I also agree that most of the time the defender is anticipating contact that never comes and it is seldom intentional. Getting back to "teaching" the flop, I just don't agree with it. There is seldom enough contact in a block charge situation to injure someone seriously. The only time I can see that is on an all out fast break, and even then It doesn't happen more than 5% of the time is my guess. By teaching them to flop at the first contact, they are sometimes falling down when the contact they recieve wouldn't normally displace them. If it doesn't displace them, then it isn't really a foul and here we have come full circle again. Besides the fact that when they fall down, they become more of a hazard to everyone else, themselves included especially if there wasn't enough contact to warrant the fall....

[Rich]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

I agree with the second far more than the first statement. The rule really is that if you flop to buy the call, it should be a T. The difficulty is one of knowing the intent. As hard as players come in these days, you teach defenders to absorb the charge by going down on their butt at first contact. You do not wait until the offensive player has made enough contact to force you down or you will dramatically increasethe odds of getting injured. This really means timing your fall to coincide with the contact when a player approches at high speed.

If you anticipate contact that never comes, you will probably go down with no contact. And this is where the question of intent comes in. Did you go down anticipating the contact and you were merely ensuring you didn't get hurt, or did you go down because there was no contact but you wanted to draw the charge anyway. In more than 90% of the cases I see, it is the former. You usually see the latter in end-of-game situations where a team is behind and despaerately trying to get the ball. And I am not sure that this is the time to become a mind reader

The first statement simply said what the practice is for many officials I've talked to. Personally, I'll no call this unless the flop brings another player down with him.

[Hawks Coach]

cmatthews
I do not teach players to "flop." I do teach players to absorb the contact rather than allow contact to flatten them. If the contact is severe enough to knock them down, it is severe enough to hurt them if they allow it to knock them down. I think it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
cmatthews
I do not teach players to "flop." I do teach players to absorb the contact rather than allow contact to flatten them. If the contact is severe enough to knock them down, it is severe enough to hurt them if they allow it to knock them down. I think it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

I'm probably the only official in America (I'm sure I'm exaggerating) who likes the NBA/NCAAW "semicircle." There are too many drives to the basket that end up being player control fouls because a defender puts himself/herself in the path of the defender -- not up where it is actually "playing defense" but rather at a spot on the floor where the only possible outcome is for the defender to get flattened and the official to call a PC foul.

To me, that distance makes a huge difference -- it's good defense if the defender draws a charge up higher -- and a bad decision by the player with the ball. But more and more charges these days are drawn by players who aren't actually defending the driver but instead are finding a spot on the floor and bracing for contact.

I know I'm not going to get a lot of people agreeing, but that's how I see it over my cup of coffee. Codifying this as a rule at other levels would force the defender to come out and play defense rather than play "try to get steamrolled."

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Mar 24th, 2004 at 09:49 AM]

[zebraman]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
There are too many drives to the basket that end up being player control fouls because a defender puts himself/herself in the path of the defender

Rich, you just described excellent defense. Why would we punish excellent defense?

[-- not up where it is actually "playing defense" but rather at a spot on the floor where the only possible outcome is for the defender to get flattened and the official to call a PC foul.

If the only possible outcome is for the defender to get flattened, then you have an out-of-control driver and good defense. Call the charge.

[To me, that distance makes a huge difference -- it's good defense if the defender draws a charge up higher -- and a bad decision by the player with the ball. But more and more charges these days are drawn by players who aren't actually defending the driver but instead are finding a spot on the floor and bracing for contact.

Once again you are describing good defense. I'm totally lost on why you want to punish that. A player control call sends a message to the offense to avoid being an out-of-control train and have some body control. All the semi-circle does is encourage the out-of-control trains which has no place in high school basketball.

I know I'm not going to get a lot of people agreeing,

Now that part I agree with.

Codifying this as a rule at other levels would force the defender to come out and play defense rather than play "try to get steamrolled."


No, it would make it impossible for a guard to defend a driving big person other than to wave them by or else get creamed and get called for a foul.

Z

[jcash]

Zebraman,
You go BOY!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
[/B]

I'm probably the only official in America (I'm sure I'm exaggerating) who likes the NBA/NCAAW "semicircle." There are too many drives to the basket that end up being player control fouls because a defender puts himself/herself in the path of the defender -- not up where it is actually "playing defense" but rather at a spot on the floor where the only possible outcome is for the defender to get flattened and the official to call a PC foul.

[/B][/QUOTE]Rich, doesn't the semi-circle rule apply to secondary or "help" defenders, not the primary defender?

[Rich]

Originally posted by zebraman
Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
There are too many drives to the basket that end up being player control fouls because a defender puts himself/herself in the path of the defender

Rich, you just described excellent defense. Why would we punish excellent defense?

[-- not up where it is actually "playing defense" but rather at a spot on the floor where the only possible outcome is for the defender to get flattened and the official to call a PC foul.

If the only possible outcome is for the defender to get flattened, then you have an out-of-control driver and good defense. Call the charge.

[To me, that distance makes a huge difference -- it's good defense if the defender draws a charge up higher -- and a bad decision by the player with the ball. But more and more charges these days are drawn by players who aren't actually defending the driver but instead are finding a spot on the floor and bracing for contact.

Once again you are describing good defense. I'm totally lost on why you want to punish that. A player control call sends a message to the offense to avoid being an out-of-control train and have some body control. All the semi-circle does is encourage the out-of-control trains which has no place in high school basketball.

I know I'm not going to get a lot of people agreeing,

Now that part I agree with.

Codifying this as a rule at other levels would force the defender to come out and play defense rather than play "try to get steamrolled."


No, it would make it impossible for a guard to defend a driving big person other than to wave them by or else get creamed and get called for a foul.

Z

Like I said, I don't expect much in the way of support here. But standing back under the basket rather than coming up and challenging the player with the ball doesn't strike me as good defense. It may discourage the "runaway trains," but I also think it discourages a lot of drives in general.

That said, I call the rule as written. If it's a block according to the rule code I'm using, it's a block. If it's a charge, it's a charge. Doesn't mean I think it's good basketball. It's not THAT hard to determine where a driving player is going to come down on a layup and plant a defender there.