Ok.
I like this forum. Good advice and suggestions everyone that typed on the 'Traveling' comments & questions I had.

Player A1 drives lane. Player B1, after establishing legal guarding position, runs beside A1. 8 feet from basket, A1 lowers shoulder into B1 and jumps toward basket. B1 hits floor due to force of contact by A1. A1 continues shot and basket is made.
Whistle on play, BLOCK is called. OR no-call.
Why?

I know a lot of variables come to play here but this is SO COMMON to see this called (or no-called) in this way that I am left confused?
Why would defense be penalized for playing defense?

Help me please. I think I'm right here but I know there is another philosophy that I haven't heard yet...
GIVE ME WHAT YOU WILL...
Thanks,

Where was the contact made on the defender?

Square on the numbers of B1's front torso.

Looks like an easy PC/TC foul with defender moving parallel to path.

The key for me is "lowering the shoulder". In my mind if the offensive player does this then the defender must have pretty good position. When they lower their shoulder, they remove almost any block call from my mind, and it is either PC or no call. If an offensive player drops their shoulder, they initiate the contact on a player that they know is there, if the defense is there allready then it looks like PC to me...

If the dribbler, A1, beats the defender, B1, so that the defender is now <b>beside</b> the dribbler instead of maintaining his legal guarding postion in <b>front</b> of the dribbler, then B1 has lost his initial legal guarding position. Gaurding principles now have to be re-established. Iow, the defender now has to give time and distance if he wants to re-establish his LGP. If the defender just jumps in front of the dribbler without establishing LGP or giving time/distance, you could have a block- even though the contact was on the defender's torso. Of course, if they are running side-by-side, the dribbler has to continue in a straight line path and not crowd the defender out of his straight line path either.

I think that I'd have to see this one. Anything else is a guess.

JR, I didn't think time and or distance applied to a player with the ball, unless of course they are an airborn shooter.

Bad verbiage on my part. The point that I was trying to make was that the defender lost LGP if the dribbler got by him so that the defender was now besides the dribbler instead of in front of the dribbler, and that the defender now has to re-establish that LGP. To do that, the defender must get in front of the dribbler again, and get both feet down and be facing the dribbler. If the defender doesn't, then it might be a block. I can't really tell from the original description, which I why I said that I'd have to see it.

I think that block is often the easier call with a moving defender, but not always the right call. The better officials get this right more often, newer and lesser officials frequently take the easier and, to them, more obvious call. And since 3/4s of coaches think you need to be set to take a charge, it is an easier sell too!

Unless being beside the dribbler keeps the defender between the ball and the basket. If the dribbler needs to shift sideways a little to get to his favorite shooting spot, then he might lower the shoulder and turn into the defender, and this could still be PC.

JR, yep I agree with you and I understand now what you meant.

Hawks Coach, I agree with you also. That is why I use the dropping of the shoulder as an indicator. Like I said above if they drop their shoulder they know that the defender is there, and they are initiating the contact. When I see the shoulder dropped I seldom have a block. There are obviously exceptions, but I usually have either a PC or if the contact isn't too severe a no call... With the no call comes the comment from the offensive coach wanting the call...To which I usually reply, you didn't want me to make a call there, cause if I have one it is PC...

I just want to point out that dropping the shoulder alone is not enough. There must be legal position by the defender. I get "Ref's, he's dropping his shoulder!" I reply, "Yeah, and...?"

And here's the gray area.

"Coach, there wasn't quite enough for a player control foul."

yep I agree too. That is why there are a lot of no calls from me on this one...

And I have had a few intentional fouls over the years when the shoulder goes down and I feel that A1 is doing so to clear out B1.

Oh, my ! :eek:

Good point, and that's what makes this a tough, have-to-see-it call. The defender can have a "legal position", without also having a "legal guarding position" at the same time. Similarly, that "legal position" can change. If the dribbler gets their head and shoulder by a defender running beside them, the onus now shifts to the defender as he has lost his "legal position". If the defender now tries to attain a LGP or regain a legal position in this case, but the contact occurs before that happens, you would have a block even though you might have a "lowered shoulder" and contact on the torso.

The 3 things I look for to qualify a PC foul.

1. Defensive player has established initial LGP
2. Contact to torso initiated by offensive player
3. Contact is sufficient to cause defensive player to move their feet (if stationary), or takes them out of their movement path (if moving).

To negate defensive players established LGP, offensive player must get head and shoulders past defensive players torso.

While a lowered shoulder is usually a dead giveaway, I'll also call a PC if the offensive player pushes off the defender with the non-dribbling hand.

FWIW, when it comes to block/charge, I think that far too often the offensive player is given the benefit of the doubt and as officials we need to work harder to call it correctly.

One step further
 

All are very good points and I tend to agree. Taking it one step further though. What if (and this seems to happen more often than not) B1 who has established legal guarding position and is standing ready to take the charge at the last second begins to lean backwards or what I like to say "bail out" which may cause the offensive player to fall or other players on the court to fall because B1 bailed out.

I had this happen to me so many times this year. Most of the time I had nothing. I asked some of the officials at the state tournament what they thought and the majority of them said you either have nothing or if it is early enough, go ahead and call the block. That way you do not have bodies all over the floor. I am not sure what to think. I agree with giving the block in an effort to mabye put a halt to the flopping. Any other ideas or help? I would say that this is the worst part of my game. If I can make this improvement then I would feel more comfortable out there when these situations happen.

I just like giving credit to GOOD defense, not coping out when the call is 'tough'. Seems too many times the defense gets punished for doing what they are supposed to be doing.
Main question I have to ask, every time...who-done-it?

Re: One step further
 

What rule says the defender can't lean back to absorb the contact?

BTW, I have found the best way to stop flopping when it's a problem is to tell the kid to stop flopping. I see no reason to call a foul for no good reason.

Block/Charge #2
 

What would you call here....B1 has established(and has been established for quite sometime, long enough to build a house with a garage attached) legal guarding position in the lane.

A1 drives to the bucket, and B1 square in the right side of the body. Whistle blows....Referee calls a block. B1 asks why, and referee says "because he hit in the leg."

I was not at this game, so I did not see this play. However, if this play happened as it was told to me, then in my judgement it is a PC/Charge foul, even though the contact was not in the torso area.

My two keys is "legal guarding position" and advantage/disadvantage. I have kind of went away from the right square in the torso line of thinking.

What would you call on this play?

Re: Re: One step further
 

And when the kid flops the next time down the floor or later in the quarter how do you handle that? Tell him again not to flop?

Ok, I will phrase it better. The kid bails out and there is no contact. The kid then falls on the floor and because he is laying on the floor, A1 trips over him and loses the ball or something like that. It is a situation that occurs more often than you would like to think.

By rule it is a T on the flopper. Maybe the National Federation should make that a point of emphasis next year and then we go out and hammer the heck outta them the first two weeks of the season. Maybe that will learn 'em.

Re: Re: Re: One step further
 

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

Re: Re: Re: One step further
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: One step further
 

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 [/QUOTE]

This is one thing I have never understood. I am young and maybe that is the problem. If it is in the rule book as a T(letter of the rule) Then why is it called a block (spirit of the rule)by practice? I am guilty of it too just a question.

I really struggled with that during the post-season. At the Sub-state I worked and even the state tournament, I got the impression that there is an unwritten rule not to T a kid or a coach (unless a fight breaks out or some unforseen uncident like that). I know that is off the subject but it just seems like there is so many situations like these out there. If I call the T on a flopper, then I would be scrutinized. I felt the same thing during post season when I let a coach cross the line and didn't T him. It is probably just me but that is the impression I have gotten from several more knowledgable, game tested, older, etc... officials. :confused:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One step further
 

This is one thing I have never understood. I am young and maybe that is the problem. If it is in the rule book as a T(letter of the rule) Then why is it called a block (spirit of the rule)by practice? I am guilty of it too just a question.

I really struggled with that during the post-season. At the Sub-state I worked and even the state tournament, I got the impression that there is an unwritten rule not to T a kid or a coach (unless a fight breaks out or some unforseen uncident like that). I know that is off the subject but it just seems like there is so many situations like these out there. If I call the T on a flopper, then I would be scrutinized. I felt the same thing during post season when I let a coach cross the line and didn't T him. It is probably just me but that is the impression I have gotten from several more knowledgable, game tested, older, etc... officials. :confused: [/QUOTE]

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).

I think things are changing at the top levels of the game (college/varsity HS). Watching Pittsburgh/Wisconsin this Sunday there were three player control fouls in a row called.

Most of my bang-bang block/charge calls are called charges -- correctly, I feel, because establishing and maintaining LGP is not as hard as some of the coaches, fans, and announcers seem to think.

--Rich

Re: Re: Re: One step further
 

Uh-huh.

Anyone want to take bets on whether we'll see more T's for this or more T's from when swinging the elbows was a technical?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One step further
 

This is one thing I have never understood. I am young and maybe that is the problem. If it is in the rule book as a T(letter of the rule) Then why is it called a block (spirit of the rule)by practice? I am guilty of it too just a question.

[/QUOTE]What makes this a difficult call imo is that there are several different calls that can be made on almost the same play, depending on an official's judgement.
-1) If you think that a player is "flopping" on you, you can T him up for committing an unsporting act by faking a foul. What I look for on this one is the big beller- <i>"aaaaaargh</i>- by the defender, with little or no contact accompanying that beller. I'll always warn on this one because he's making me look bad.
-2) You also have to remember that the defender, after attaining LGP, can now protect themself from the contact. They can move, duck, get the arms in front to brace themselves, and even turn around and take the contact from behind- and still be legal. Contact would be charged to the offensive player. See rule 4-34-3.
-3) If the defender falls down without contact in front of the dribbler, it could also end up as a no-call. A defender falling to the floor is legally entitled to that spot. Contact now by the dribbler with the defender on the floor is ruled as inadvertant, unless the defensive player on the floor tries to trip or block the dribbler. See case book play 10.6.1SitE. This is an NFHS interpretation only, and is not applicable to NCAA rules. It's a foul under NCAA rules.
-4) Or, as discussed before, you can have a PC foul on the dribbler under certain circumstances.

Don't worry. With experience, you'll be able to differentiate between the different scenarios, and make the appropriate call.

Re: Re: Re: Re: One step further
 

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.

Rich & Jurassic

Thanks for the input. I truly appreciate it!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One step further
 

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One step further
 

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.

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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One step further
 

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One step further
 

Quote:

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 :)

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....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One step further
 

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.

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]

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

Zebraman,
You go BOY!

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?

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.

Is defender entitled to that spot on the floor if he established lgp no matter how stupid he may be for setting up there?

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

Actually Rich, there are at least two of us here on this board...and to answer JR - in NCAAW there isn't a semi-circle, but the rule about taking a "charge" under the basket does apply only to secondary defenders...and anyone who likes the NCAAM ruling should refer back to the two PC calls in the first half on Gonzaga's Ronny Turiauf - wouldn't have been called that way in NCAAW or NBA...oh well, wouldn't have helped them anyway - Nevada was too good...

I agree with Rich
 

I do not think you are playing defense if you are guarding a landing area. Standing under the basket is not part of any defense I teach, and is in fact a cardinal sin in my system. Standing under the basket puts you in perfect position to retrieve made shots from the bottom of the net.

Standing under the basket is legal, and under current rules, technically qualifies as good defense if you draw a charge there. But I prefer that defenders actually be required to defend a player before they shoot, or in an area where they will shoot rather than an area they will land after release. If a player lands OOB, a defender is not allowed under the current NF interpretation to draw a charge here. Simply add under the basket to the list of areas where you can't draw a charge and it ceases to be anything but a block.

Re: I agree with Rich
 

A1 drives the baseline and beats his defender B1. B2 is on the other side of the lane & sees this (don't ask me how, maybe he was ball-watching ;) ) and comes over to help. He stops under the basket facing A1 before A1 goes airborne and takes a charge.

How is this not good defense by B2?

No call? Mmmmmm...maybe, maybe not. Block on B2? I don't think so.

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. [/B][/QUOTE]

On the plays I've seen LGP usually has very lttle to do with it. This is about a defender that picked a spot in the path but the offensive player adjusted, so the defender
throws himself back, screams out, and hits the floor. It has nothing to do with LPG, or protection, it is about trying to trick the official.

If you call the first flop a block guess what, they stop flopping, and what can they say,"I did not touch him." I'll
fire back,"Then why did you hit the floor?"

I agree if it can knock you down it "can" hurt you. I do however disagree with falling at first contact...It isn't a foul if it doesn't displace the player, if the defense falls on first contact, and that contact is not normall enough to displace them, then this tactic is Flopping pure and simple. Assuming the contact wasn't enough to displace a player and they flop anyway, they are causing a bigger hazard than if they stood their ground to begin with. If I think a player is habitually flopping, they will have to get freighttrained in order to get the PC call. With that said, they will know if I think they are flopping...I give the get up signal. I didn't use to but after talking to one of our veteran officials, and watching him use it, I have begun to now also. His comment was if you do that then everyone knows you saw the play and why you had a No Call...

On the plays I've seen LGP usually has very lttle to do with it. This is about a defender that picked a spot in the path but the offensive player adjusted, so the defender
throws himself back, screams out, and hits the floor. It has nothing to do with LPG, or protection, it is about trying to trick the official.

If you call the first flop a block guess what, they stop flopping, and what can they say,"I did not touch him." I'll
fire back,"Then why did you hit the floor?"

[/B][/QUOTE]If it's about trying to trick the official,as you say above, then it's unsporting and the rules do allow you to call a T. There is NO rule in any rule book that will allow you to call a block, or personal foul of any type, when physical contact is absent. The very definition of a block, or any personal foul for that matter, says that it is <b>illegal personal contact</b>. If there is contact, then you are supposed to follow the rules that do apply to that contact, NOT ignore those rules.

A1 drives the baseline and beats his defender B1. B2 is on the other side of the lane & sees this (don't ask me how, maybe he was ball-watching ;) ) and comes over to help. He stops under the basket facing A1 before A1 goes airborne and takes a charge.

How is this not good defense by B2?

[/B][/QUOTE]The NCAA women's rule doesn't apply to baseline drives anyway, does it?

The NCAA women's rule doesn't apply to baseline drives anyway, does it? [/B][/QUOTE]

You may be right, but I wasn't specifically questioning if a particular rules set declares how a particualr play should be called. I was questioning those who like to say a player standing under the basket is not playing good defense. When I see the play I posted my first thought is "nice defense". (I'll admit I don't see exactly 100% of them though...but I get my fair share! ;) )

Howzabout I change the play to "A1 drives just outside the left lane line and...". Got everyone covered now, right? ;)

You may be right, but I wasn't specifically questioning if a particular rules set declares how a particualr play should be called. I was questioning those who like to say a player standing under the basket is not playing good defense. When I see the play I posted my first thought is "nice defense".
[/B][/QUOTE]OK, and I personally agree with you. For the life of me, I can't figger out how you can make a rule that only applies to one particular spot on the offensive end of the court, and then if you have a defensive player move ONE little step, that rule no longer applies. And the rule that you did make also goes completely against established concepts like legal guarding position,etc. And you then top it all off by throwing in something like "But we don't really mean it if it happens along the baseline".

Doesn't make any sense to me. Of course, I get confused easily anyway.

This is all WAY too funny.

Thanks guys you have helped...