Actually Crusty #1 and Crusty #2 got into it with blindzebra, who can hardly be called a "student". If you'll take the time and go back and re-read this thresd, Juulie, I think that you'll find that Crusty #1 and Crusty #2 actually tried very hard to be helpful to the "student"- 1meadski. I know that I looked and I can't find an instance in this thread where I got <b>crusty</b> with the "student"-1meadski.

I also can't talk for Crusty #2 at any time either, contrary to some people's opinion. To do so would make Crusty #2...well...crusty.

Re: Dan
 

I'm not sure that this question ever got answered amongst the insults and requests for the squirrel picture, but the general answer is yes, as long as nothing in 4-23-3 was violated.

Isn't flopping leaning back? [/B][/QUOTE]


Yes, but the natural conclusion to your post (if you mean it this way) is that you can get a technical foul for flopping while remaining in a legal guarding position. May I assume that? [/B][/QUOTE]

If B1 takes it in the chest, then they haven't faked being fouled! They may have embellished a bit, but they didn't fake it.

Okay, well I just skimmed through, and didn't really get down to details. Saw the squirrel picture, saw the flames, saw the thing about 15% (but, I see now that that's Crusty #2). My apologies to Crusty #1. I acknowledge your infinite patience and solicitude to the humble petitioners, and your righteous indignation to the arrogant and petulant.

(cute little smilie here, bowing and scraping).

Re: Re: Dan
 

Actually, I answered it twice. Here's what I said, tucked in there amongst the requests for squirrel pictures:

"B1 does not lose LGP when he leans back."

I bailed out when the discussion devolved into exactly how many degrees off the floor B1 must be for this to still apply.

And btw Juulie, please refrain from explaining the thinking behind my posts or apologizing for them.

Have a happy new year.

If B1 flops, and there is contact, how do you judge this to be a foul?

IOW, how can you judge displacement if B1 flops?

Just because there's contact, it doesn't mean a foul has occurred.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Dec 31st, 2005 at 07:07 PM]

Re: Re: Dan
 

I went back and re-read 4.23.3. According to that, it does seem that a player can have LGP even if he is falling to the floor. However, the rule on flopping (10.3.7.F) makes it clear that flopping is a T (which most feel is an unwarranted call, myself included, in most cases). I see this in my head better than I can explain, sorry: A1 is in LGP. In anticipation of contact with dribbler B1, A1 begins a flop (not protecting, flopping). As A1 is on his/her way to the floor, B1 finally makes contact with A1 and trips over the almost prone defender (remember, A1 is not on the floor yet). From what I am hearing, the concensus is foul on B1 for charging into A1, who is still in a LGP. Got it.

[Edited by lmeadski on Dec 31st, 2005 at 07:35 PM]

Re: Re: Re: Dan
 

First off A1 is always on offense when you present a play.;)

Second, B1 is allowed to turn or duck to absorb contact, that is COMPLETELY different than bailing out, doing the limbo, or selling contact that has not yet occurred.

If that lean is not for self protection, no way am I calling a charge when contact occurs AFTER B1 is going down.

It's a no call or a block.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dan
 

I agree. As I said, how can we judge displacement if the defender flops? In my mind, I don't see how there can be displacement if the defender is already flopping before contact.

Sorry, Im player dyslexic
 

I will work on my A's and B's when presenting. Sorry

Re: Re: Re: Dan
 

Well, I don't know where you got a consensus from but I don't have a foul on A1. It's not a foul to trip over another player.

:confused:

You're overthinking, my friend. Don't call a rule book foul. Call what your head and your gut tells you to call.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dan
 

Agreed!! After i get things worked through in my noggin, then I can make a reaction call vs thinking about it. I think i do have it clear in my mind how I will handle this in the future. You all have been a great help, as always.

Just because B1 starts to flop doesn't mean a charge sitll can't happen. If A1 still plows over B1 even if B1 has started to fade away, it is still a charge. B1's flop can only lessen the contact, not increase it. If there is still enough contact for a foul, why permit A1 to get away with it just because B1 was trying to sell it to us.

Even if B1 starts to flop, I'll still call a charge if a charge occurs.

Camron, a foul is in the eye of the beholder. Just like some officials won't call a charge if the defender is under the basket, I'm not calling one if the defender is flopping and there's no displacement. To each his own.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Jan 1st, 2006 at 03:30 PM]

No displacement, I agree....nothing to call.

Notice that I said "plows over"...which I meant to imply substantial displacing contact.

There are those who will refuse to call a foul just because B1 was trying/starting to flop in spite of substantial displacement.