Block/charge

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by phansen

Defender is set and stationary when the offensive player dribbling the ball runs into the defender. Offensive player bounces off the defender and goes to the ground, while the defender is still standing in the same position.

Maybe I'm too old-fashioned (I certainly can't say old school anymore), but this has to be a charge. Defender is not moving and is occupying a space on the floor. Offensive player is attempting to occupy that space with such force that he falls to the floor. How can this be incidental contact?

You are reading too much into the advantage/disadvantage aspect. If a HS player runs into you with enough force that he himself falls down, that hurts. Even if you never played the game, you must have had a player run into you at some point in your career. Ouch!

If pain isn't disadvantageous to playing basketball, I don't know what is.

I understand those who say they'd have to see the play, but this is obvious to me.

If you no-call this, I can almost guarantee that game is going to start going downhill. Keep your eyes open for chippy play.

[JRutledge]

This is like a screen being set. If a player runs hard into a legal screen and the screened player falls, you should not call a foul on anyone. The same applies here. First of all you should not call fouls just because someone falls and you should not call fouls just because someone does not fall. But if someone is in LGP and they do not get moved in any way, why call a foul?

Based on what I read, this is a no call all the way.

Peace

[Adam]

A foul, by definition, requires some advantage or disadvantage. If the player doesn't get moved or affected in any way, it's not a foul. You're not punishing him for being 260 lbs. Where's the punishment? Where's the disadvantage?
Now, if A1 crashes into him full speed and knocks the wind out of him without knocking him down, call the foul. But if B1 isn't fazed? No foul.

[blindmanwalking]

Does anyone else snicker just a little when you see this happen?

[Adam]

Maybe we're seeing different plays in our heads or something; but I've seen a ton of plays where the ball handler runs into a stationary defender in the paint (normally a pg running into a tree), and usually it’s a no call. I can tell you this, I’ve never taken a bit of grief from the coach of the tree for a no call. Do you really think the pg is going to turn himself into some sort of human missile over and over again because we just call him for traveling?

Seriously, if the defender isn’t affected at all, then there’s no foul. If the pg runs in full speed and torpedoes him, then I might call it. But for 99% of the plays I can envision with this, you’ve got a pg running in, trying to avoid contact or draw a foul, and hitting a stationary defender who doesn’t get affected in the least.

You don’t call a kid for a minor push when there’s no advantage on the play.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by blindmanwalking

Does anyone else snicker just a little when you see this happen?

Discretely, yes.

[blindmanwalking]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Discretely, yes.

I've called games with this scenario happening. I don't call anything. The offensive player is penalized by the pain in his body from running into a tree and usually travels before he picks himself up off the floor. I'm not the only one in the gym snickering behind my whistle either. I have yet to hear a complaint from either coach on a no-call in this situation. They may be snickering too.

[IUgrad92]

This has got to be a foul, otherwise you are making a determination not on the act itself, but on who the act was against. So at that point you are not treating all defenders equally. Not good, IMHO.

Rule 4-45-5 does not say there is not a foul if the defender doesn't fall down or act like he got hurt by the play. If the offensive player causes contact within the defender's vertical plan, then it is a foul.

I also apply 4-45-7 here too. The player with the ball is to be given NO MORE protection or consideration that the defender in judging which player has violated the rules.

I agree with Jimgolf. If this kind of contact is not called, where the offending player basically knocks himself to the ground, then you better look out. Things are going to get uglier.

Why do you think that the excess elbows violation has been added recently?? IMHO, previously, when no contact with excess elbows, no foul was typically called. BUT, the game got uglier because players were taking offense to that kind of act and retaliating to a degree, which in large part, gets caught by the official. The implemented violation for elbows keeps these things under check.

Lord help that guard that keeps chipping the center each time the center sets a screen. If he doesn't fall down, or acts hurt, etc. he's only going to take it for so long. Then of course, the only foul called will be on the center.......yikes.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

This has got to be a foul, otherwise you are making a determination not on the act itself, but on who the act was against. So at that point you are not treating all defenders equally. Not good, IMHO.

Rule 4-45-5 does not say there is not a foul if the defender doesn't fall down or act like he got hurt by the play. If the offensive player causes contact within the defender's vertical plan, then it is a foul.

I also apply 4-45-7 here too. The player with the ball is to be given NO MORE protection or consideration that the defender in judging which player has violated the rules.

I agree with Jimgolf. If this kind of contact is not called, where the offending player basically knocks himself to the ground, then you better look out. Things are going to get uglier.

Why do you think that the excess elbows violation has been added recently?? IMHO, previously, when no contact with excess elbows, no foul was typically called. BUT, the game got uglier because players were taking offense to that kind of act and retaliating to a degree, which in large part, gets caught by the official. The implemented violation for elbows keeps these things under check.

Lord help that guard that keeps chipping the center each time the center sets a screen. If he doesn't fall down, or acts hurt, etc. he's only going to take it for so long. Then of course, the only foul called will be on the center.......yikes.

first thing first -- the excess elbows violation has always been there -- it just used to be a T for the penalty which a lot of officials didnt want to call so they changed it to a violation.

what you are asking is to penalize players who are large because they might have an easy time making their power moves -- this case a smaller player bounced off a bigger player -- whats the foul? PC -- NO WAY punish the offense for what -- their player getting creamed and hitting the pine...I wont call it

[Adam]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

This has got to be a foul, otherwise you are making a determination not on the act itself, but on who the act was against. So at that point you are not treating all defenders equally. Not good, IMHO.

I forgot to add, it's the result of the contact, when combined with the rules of who is responsible, that defines a foul. You need both.

And you make a determination based on who the contact is against every single time; you don't call a foul when A1 pushes A2 into position.