Actually I went with a black and white, striped corset, heels and black polyester slacks, because nothing says sexy like black polyester!

Me and Chuck are on the same page and you, Dan and Juggling are on another. I think Chuck and I are thinking of slight contact and the kid totally bails out on the play, and you guys are thinking of no contact whatsoever. I understand, I will take the blame for not totally clarifying. Sorry.

Have not called one to this day. I am still young though. I might get one, one day, but I doubt it.

Key word there Jurassic is HAD. Once he begins the "bailout," he no longer HAS legal guarding position, therefore, a block would be the correct call in this situation.

And for the record, since I was one of the people mentioned in the "you guys must have called 50 of those" post, I've warned players about it a number of times, and whacked exactly ONE of them for doing it again.

And maybe this year, since Unsporting Behavior is a Point of Emphasis, and that's what this falls under, I'll forgo the warning and see how many of these I can get.

[Edited by Whistles & Stripes on Sep 6th, 2005 at 12:00 AM]

Say what?

Methinks you should maybe do a l'il reading of the ol' rule book. Being able to be moving and still maintain a legal guarding position is a basic concept of the LGP principle. You've got it completely wrong.

Try NFHS rule 4-23-3(b) first. That sez <i>the guard is <b>not</b> required to continue facing the opponent"</i>. Then try rule 4-23-3(c). Note that it sez <i>"the guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not <b>toward</b> the opponent when the contact occurs"</i>. Then try rule 4-23-3(e) which sez <i>"The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact"</i>.

There is <b>never</b> any prerequisite in the rules that sez you must be stationary and can't be moving to maintain a legal guarding position.

The basic concepts of LGP are the same under NCAA rules.

Uh, no. If you refer back to page 1 of this thread, Chuck <b>was</b> talking about calling a <b>personal</b> foul with <b>NO</b> contact. That's where we differed with him because there is <b>NO</b> rules support to do so. Don't change history.

If there is "slight" contact when the defender is "flopping", then you possibly could call a personal foul. That personal foul, however, does <b>NOT</b> have to be a block, as you and Whistles&Stripes said. If the defender maintained LGP when the contact occurred, then the correct call could be a charge.

Yup, JR's right, as usual. I was indeed talking about calling the block when the defender simply flopped without contact. As I said, I think this is a philosophy -- obviously not a rules interpretation -- that says the T is too severe, but the flop should be punished.

The one time I called the block was b/c the flopper fell in the shooter's landing spot. Dangerous.

That's exactly the same point that Junker made. In most of the cases I would certainly agree with you guys too. A flop should definitely be punished......somehow.....and it's obvious that most officials are leary of calling a "T". The problem is coming up with something that fits both the existing rules and this philosophy.

Thoughts, anybody?

I'd like to see it become a common foul, although you'd have make it an exeption if you wanted it called with no contact. As I said earlier, change the rule like they did this year for players running oob so it gets called once in a while.

FWIW, I personally like the fact I can call a T for an obvious flop. The only reason for a flop is to deceive the referee into making a wrong call, and I think, and the Fed. seems to agree, is that is an unsporting act that does not belong in basketball. So they have given us the tool (sledgehammer?) to make sure unsporting acts do not occur.

Now, that said, I have only called this once, and that was after warning the same player about this earlier in the game. The coach also had no problem with the call, because it was obvious. A long time ago I also called a T on a player who was trying to draw the charge by grabbing the offensive player's jersey and pulling that player down on top of himself. To me, that's the same thing, just an attempt to deceive. I've also seen instances where players have gone down expecting contact, but somehow none occurs. In cases like this, there probably isn't an intent to deceive, so the sledghammer isn't necessary. But it seems as though there's always some form of contact because of this flop; not necessarily at the moment of the flop, but usually afterwards. After the flopper is on the floor, the offensive player trips or steps on the player on the floor. That's where I can see using the lesser tool (calling the block instead of the T), because the player on the floor does not have LGP.

And is it just me, or have others noticed that is seems as though the louder the grunt by the defensive player, the more likely it's a flop?

You're going to get some argument on this one but I agree with you, and so does the ncaa (4-33-4a AR 23). But now we have a genuine foul, not something made up to lessen the blow.

As Dan alludes to, there is no NFHS support to say that a player on the floor does not have a LGP.

Well put M&M. All that was what I was trying to express. And as you were talking about the kid pulling the jersey to try to get a foul. The NBA has a term for those type of fouls. It is rightly called a "fool the referee play". You see it happen more than you would think. I thought you explained everything on point though.

NCAA 4-33.4 tells how a player establishes LGP. If you look at 4-33.6, it talks about how a player maintains LGP. In particular, 4-33.6f says explicitly that a player who has established LGP is not required to have the feet on the playing court when shifting in the path of the dribbler to maintain LGP. This could apply to a player who has fallen on the floor.

I'm not sure I agree, let's go through it:

I'm not sure how you can fall down within your own vertical plane.

Also, I agree the AR is under establishing LGP but here's what the AR says:


I read this as saying that laying on the floor is by definition an illegal defensive position period.