Pardon me if this is a stupid question, but I'd like to be an educated spectator of the game.
Can a penalty be called on a defensive player for faking a charge by the offensive player? I couldn't find any reference to this subject in the NCAA rule book.

Yes, but it depends on your definition of faking. As an official, if a kid is falling before he gets hit but there is contact I will call a block or nothing at all. If the kid just falls down with no contact more than likely I will no call it, but by rule it is supposed to be a technical foul for flopping.

A block? Did he impede the progress of the offense by starting to move back early?

I hope I never call a block for this.

I look at it like this and it just depends on philosophy:

I think if it causes the kid to miss the shot then I have to have something, whether it be a T or a block, and I mean on plays where the defender flops and lands on the floor underneath the airborne shooter.

If there's no contact how can you have a foul?

By using the wisdom of Solomon. The T is too severe. A no-call is too lenient. Cut that baby right down the middle and call a block.

Not saying I like it, but that's obviously the philosophy. A lot of guys use it. I must admit that I have also done it. Once.

Going thru old threads. We talked about this briefly: http://officialforum.com/thread/15232

[Edited by ChuckElias on Sep 4th, 2005 at 12:01 PM]

Fiba, faking ecuals technical- I like the rule, it makes the play a lot more intresting

Apparently refTN has retained counsel to speak for him.

Why is a no-call too lenient of there is no contact?

Because by rule, it's a T, isn't it?

But you've already decided in your judgement the non-contact does not deserve a T...IOW you've decided that the defender has not violated that rule.

By rule the only choice left is a no-call.

I think the problem is that the defender definitely did violate the rule, but the penalty for the violation is too severe.

So you can do nothing, or you can give a lesser penalty.

If you're gonna issue a penalty for a rule that has been violated, I think you have to go with what the book says. I have a real problem with guys that think their smarter then the book. I also have a real problem with making a call that has no rulebook support for it. If you're gonna call it, then call it the way the book says to. Otherwise, I think you have to no-call it.

I'm with Dan.

Call the "T". Or ignore it. Or ignore it and mention it to the defender and/or his coach when you get a chance. Your choice.

You <b>don't</b> call a personal foul without physical contact however. Never call anything that you can't explain.

Coach: Didn't look there was any contact there at all!
Ref: Of course there was, Coach. Otherwise, how'd your guy get knocked to the ground?

Never call anything that you cant explain without lying. :)

Coach: "He got knocked to the ground because he was charged. You missed it @sshole, now T me up for THAT!"

Got a snappy comeback for that Chuck? I hope so, 'cause you gave A 2 FT's for nothing, and now you're gonna T Coach B because he's right & you're wrong and both of you know it.

Nice job.

Rules reference for givng the lesser penalty?

How many of you have actually called this T? I had to once because a partner warned a kid loudly and everyone in the gym knew he was warned. Personally, if there's no contact I have a conversation with the kid or the coach and let him know how I saw the play and he or she needs to stay on their feet and take the contact.

Ya'know - I think the penalty for a flagrant foul is too severe. So, the next time B1 punches A1 in the face, I'll just give A1 one free throw and let his team inbound half the ball. I'll also throw B1 halfway out of the game.

Guys, "modifying" a penalty by making an incorrect call is not fair to either team. This is similar to the thinking the NBA had under the old "forceout" rule. They finally came around to realize either the contact was severe enough to be called a foul, or else it wasn't and you had a turnover. It couldn't be "sort of a foul but not really".

So between Jurassic, W&S, and Dan you guys have had, what would you say 50 T's?

Why or how is this relevant in any way to this discussion?

You guys say it should be called exactly by the rulebook each and every time so I assume you and the other guys have called a ton of T's.

I think that you need to take a reading comprehension course before you assume things.

We <b>all</b> basically said that you have to make this call <b>BY THE RULES</b>. Iow, you can't make up your own little set of rules just because you feel like it. That might be OK in the ......wait for it......SEC, but it sureashell doesn't fly anywhere else. If you go back and read our posts again, you will find that we all said basically the same thing----> if a defender flops without contact, then the <b>RULES</b> say that you can either call a "T" on the defender for flopping <b>OR</b> you can no-call the play. <b>Nowhere</b> did any of us state or recommend that anyone <b>SHOULD</b> call a "T". What we <b>DID</b> say was that you <b>can't</b> call a personal foul for blocking on a defender without physical contact being present, as Chuck stated in another post.



[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 5th, 2005 at 09:51 PM]

Even if the kid falling down had legal guarding position?

Lah me.

Thanks for the clarification JR. I thought that's what you were getting at. I'd still like to hear if anyone else ever calls the T for flopping. As stated before, I got handcuffed into calling it one night, but that's honestly the only time I've ever even heard of it being called. I'd like to see them experiment with changing the rule to a common foul (although they'd have to change the terminology so that it wouldn't have to include contact). I see this T much like the T for running OOB that was changed for this year. It happens alot, but the rule is almost never enforced because the penalty seems too severe.

Well, personally, I think it is reasonable to accept the player moving a bit as part of the natural human reaction to a known impending impact. One part of the brain says to move, and another part say stay to "get the charge call". Those neurons conflicting with each other allow a good referee to only call the obvious technical fouls.

Dan was getting at exactly the same thing too, as was W&S.

Personally I've called a "T" twice in a whole buncha years iirw, and both times it was after I had already issued an off-the-record warning for it in that game. I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've no-called it though, or warned a defender to cut it out. Might be just me, but I don't believe in issuing the same warning twice.

I agree with you that the penalty <b>usually</b> does not fit the crime in this particular case. The only problem is that it tends to get coaches who aren't aware that their player was flopping riled up. A warning and a little whisper to the coach usually takes care of that problem imo.

JR,
I think most of us approach this situation as you described the the previous post. The flop for me falls more into a game management situation. In fact, the one time I did call it, I talked to the coach about the player (after my partner loudly warned the coach and player) and told him exactly what I was seeing and where it falls according to the rules. When I made the call, the coach jumps up off the bench and is about to say something to me. I just put up the stop sign and said "coach, that's exactly the play I discussed with you between quarters". He sat down and was good the remainder of the game. Most of the time coaches will respond to the warning.

You mean for this play?...hold on, I got a lot of games to think back on...let's see...uhmmm...ok...yeah...yeah...then there was...and then there was...

OK, I got it now. For this play I've had exactly zero T's.

What about you sonny?

Were you wearing your fishnets at the time? WHOA!

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.

Unless you look at AR 23 on page 80 of the '04-'05 NCAA book.

[Dan beat me to it!! :mad: ]

Big surprise there.

Staying in one's vertical plane provision is only relevant to maintaining LGP when raising hands or jumping. There are lots of ways to maintain LGP while leaving one's vertical plane. Look at a, d, e, and f, for example.

I read it as saying that since this player cannot establish legal guarding position while lying on the floor, he/she must be in an illegal guarding position.

However, I understand your point. Only an NCAA interpreter knows for sure...

You're saying the defender can stick a leg out?

Partner & I both had the opportunity to call the T last year and did so. I agree with the thought that it is dangerous when the defensive player goes down under the basket but, IMO, he/she better have a reason to go down. If he flops he gonna get a 'T'. I see no reason to call a block if one was not present. Next time he/she might think about playing defense instead of deceiving the ref. I have no problem making this call.

No.

Right to a spot on the floor
 

A player, offensive or defensive has a right to a spot on the floor. If the B1 falls to the floor and A1 still chooses to dribble over the top of B1, who has initiated the contact? Who is responsible for the contact? LGP has nothing to do with the foul in this case.

Another example: B1 is stationary guarding A1, with his back to A2. A2 dribbling runs over B1, knocking B1 to the floor. B1 never had LGP, but A2 still charged into him. B1 is entitled to his spot on the floor.

If B1 has fallen to the floor for whatever reason, he is still entitled to his spot. The defender's movement is now somewhat restricted and defensive moves that make contact with the offensive player could be fouls of some sort. You would have to see the play.

Just because a defender has fallen to the floor does not give anyone the right to run him over and have the foul on the player on the floor. The player on the floor still has to commit a foul (ie. do something to cause a foul) to be called for a foul.

You are completely correct in FED games. In NCAA games, if A1 trips over B1 who has fallen to the floor -- tough luck -- foul on B1.

Re: Right to a spot on the floor
 

Good summary of the way the play should be called in FED.

FED casebook play 10.6.1SitE is the rules reference.

Yup, that's NCAA 4-33-4(a)-AR23.

But....that play describes a pivot player with the ball turning and then falling over a defender who has fallen to the floor. What about a play where a defender has fallen, and the dribbler facing that way has plenty of time/distance to alter their path to avoid that defender? I just can't believe that the purpose and intent of the NCAA ruling is to give the dribbler <i>carte blanche</i> to run into or over defenders- no matter where they are, if the defender has fallen down. Don't you think that the concept of each player having the right to take a position on the floor shouldn't be taken into consideration in this case ? Iow, how many steps should you allow that dribbler to take before running over the falling defender, if any?

I'm having a hard time imagining what the dribbler could do to foul the guy on the floor. He might step on him, in which case I'd have to judge whether it was intentional or not. But other than that, what action(s) are you envisioning? If the defender falls down, the dribbler is going to the basket. And in that case, if he trips over B1, it's a foul on B1.

What other case could arise?

B1 is guarding A1, who is dribbling. B1 has established LGP. A1 moves agressively straight at B1, who moves straight back. B1 loses his/her balance and falls backwards, at which point A1 runs into and trips over B1.

Clearly if B1 had not fallen over backwards, this would have been a foul on A1. The question is whether B1 loses LGP by falling over backwards. Some in this thread have argued that A.R. 23 after 4-33.4a says that any time a player is on the floor, he/she is in an illegal defensive position. However, looking at 4-33.6, one could argue that B1 has met the requirements to maintain LGP.

If the defender falls down, the dribbler is going to the basket. And in that case, if he trips over B1, it's a foul on B1.

[/B][/QUOTE]If B1 is already on the floor 3/4 steps away from the dribbler with the dribbler <b>facing</b> him, and the dribbler just keeps on a-motoring and subsequently falls over B1, then it's still B1's foul? Time/distance never has any bearing on this call? Do you think that is the pupose/intent of that NCAA AR?

It's hard for me to imagine what possible advantage a dribbler would have in knowingly going directly towards a player on the floor. If there's contact then virtually always the dribbler didn't have time to avoid the defender on the floor.

If B1 is already on the floor 3/4 steps away from the dribbler with the dribbler <b>facing</b> him, and the dribbler just keeps on a-motoring and subsequently falls over B1, then it's still B1's foul? Time/distance never has any bearing on this call? Do you think that is the pupose/intent of that NCAA AR? [/B][/QUOTE]

hmmmm...getting into uncharted waters here but I believe you need to give the dribbler the benefit of the doubt on your play and make your call/no call assuming the dribbler didn't see the defender on the floor.

Again, if the defender's on the floor what does the dribbler gain by tripping over him?

Clearly if B1 had not fallen over backwards, this would have been a foul on A1. The question is whether B1 loses LGP by falling over backwards. Some in this thread have argued that A.R. 23 after 4-33.4a says that any time a player is on the floor, he/she is in an illegal defensive position. <font color = red>However, looking at 4-33.6, one could argue that B1 has met the requirements to maintain LGP.</font>

[/B][/QUOTE]That's basically what I've been trying to say. The purpose and intent of "guarding" principles and the principle of every player also being able to legally have a position on the court isn't always met by AR23.

Again, if the defender's on the floor what does the dribbler gain by tripping over him? [/B][/QUOTE]The dribbler gains an automatic blocking foul on the defender, according to a strict application of AR23, no?

The dribbler gains an automatic blocking foul on the defender, according to a strict application of AR23, no? [/B][/QUOTE]

Could be, I'll keep that in mind for when I see a dribbler purposefuly run over a defender laying on the floor.

Could be, I'll keep that in mind for when I see a dribbler purposefuly run over a defender laying on the floor. [/B][/QUOTE]Aw, c'mon........

I'm just trying to (seriously) find out how far you take AR23. Time/distance <b>never</b> applies?

I can see that AR applying to a post player turning, and then starting their move unaware that a defender's down there and not really having a chance to stop or change direction before falling over the defender. But.....is there no limit though in NCAA?

Aw, c'mon........

I'm just trying to (seriously) find out how far you take AR23. Time/distance <b>never</b> applies?

I can see that AR applying to a post player turning, and then starting their move unaware that a defender's down there and not really having a chance to stop or change direction before falling over the defender. But.....is there no limit though in NCAA? [/B][/QUOTE]

I already gave you my answer. Virtually every time a dribbler sees a player, any player, on the floor he moves to avoid him. As a practical matter if the dribbler trips over a player on the floor I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt virtually every time. As a rules matter, the AR says B1 "has taken an illegal defensive position". To me, taking an illegal defensive position means he can neither establish LGP nor maintain LGP. If B1 has taken an illegal defensive position then he is solely responsible for any subsequent contact.

In virtually every case.

ahh
 

i see the dead horse requires a further beatdown.

Re: ahh
 

No it doesn't. Not at all. No further beatdown. Not for this dead horse. No beatdown at all. No way. No sirree.