Flop / No contact / travel
 

Team A is losing by 20+ (score probably doesnt matter). Team B's first unit has taken several good charges in help defense on the baseline throughout the game. With about 3 minutes left, Team B puts subs into the game. A1 beats B1 along the baseline and drive to the goal. B2 comes over to help and sets up to take the charge. A1 anticipates the charge and pulls up for a jumpshot as B2 begins to fall backwards anticipating a charge. A1 senses that he might land on B2 and braces for an akward fall, never releases the ball for a shot. How should this type of situation be officiated? thanks.

If, in the judgment of the official, this is a deliberate act of deception, it could be called a technical foul. 10-3-7: A player shall not commit an unsporting foul.
This includes.......faking being fouled.....


What I get out of the description you give is B1 flinching away from contact. If this is the case, I think there is no question that traveling would be the call.

Here's a better description of the scene if it helps with any insights on this situation: A1 is in the air, B2 is on the floor, A1 decides not to shoot and lands holding the ball legs straddled over B2 then hops over him out of bounds. B2 fell over with no contact having occured, anticipating a charge.

It is not illegal to anticipate contact and attempt to lessen it by giving ground. Moving/leaning backwards does not negate legal guarding position. It is only illegal to fake being fouled. In your situation, the official would have to make a decision as to which of the above actions the defender undertook. If the official does not believe that B2 faked being fouled, then the correct call is traveling.

It may have been a nice sporting move for A1 to dodge landing on B2. He may have been concerned about injuring his opponent. Of course, he may also have been primarily concerned with not injuring himself, say twisting or breaking his ankle. There is no way to tell. As an official, I would try to make the best judgment of B2's actions that I could and simply be thankful that neither player was hurt.

thanks for your input. It was a weird looking play, and when the kid landed, no whistle blew for a couple seconds. I wasnt sure what would be the correct call, the kids just seemed to laugh it off a little (Team B because it was a young guy trying to take charges like the starters and totally missing it, Team A cuz A1 jumped, landed, jumped again and kinda ran out of bounds with the ball, with no immediate whistle).

So basically an official should be judging whether the defender was "giving ground" to lessen impact and just fell over, or was faking getting hit to draw a charge call?

What would the call be if A1 landed on B2 upon finishing his shot? No LGP while laying on the ground? I could imagine that situation being dangerous for both parties involved. Hopefully this might get an interesting discussion going when everyone is awake tomorrow without any name calling or crazy message board drama.

Your play may spark some good discussion. For starters I would direct you to a recent post of JR's on the NFHS forum.
Here is the NCAA ruling:
Guarding
4-33-4a A.R. 91 B1 slips to the floor in the free-throw lane. A1 (with his/her back to B1, who is prone) receives a pass, turns and, in his or her attempt to drive to the basket, trips and falls over B1. RULING: Foul on B1, who has taken an illegal defensive position.

An additional point is that a player must attain a position on the floor before an opponent leaves his feet.

4-23-4 . . . Guarding an opponent with the ball or a stationary opponent without the ball:
a. No time or distance is required to obtain an initial legal position.
b. If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.

CONTACT SITUATIONS
10.6.1 SITUATION A: B1 takes a certain spot on the court before A1 jumps in the air to catch a pass: (a) A1 lands on B1; or (b) B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 lands on one foot and then charges into B1. RULING: In (a) and (b), the foul is on A1. (4-7)


10.6.1 SITUATION C: B1 is standing behind the plane of the backboard before A1 jumps for a lay-up shot. The forward momentum causes airborne shooter A1 to charge into B1. RULING: B1 is entitled to the position obtained legally before A1 left the floor. If the ball goes through the basket before or after the contact occurs, the player-control foul cancels the goal. However, if B1 moves into the path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1. B1's foul on the airborne shooter is a foul during the act of shooting. If the shot is successful, one free throw is awarded and if it is unsuccessful, two free throws result. (4-19-1, 6; 6-7-4; 10 Penalty 2, 5a)

IMO, at that point in the game, with a twenty point spread - I'm calling a turnover for travelling, getting the ball back in play and moving on. A technical for that call would be a game interrupter. With the score out of hand and time expiring - I'm trying to protect kids from being injured and getting the clock moving. Neither coach wants to keep this one going either - time to get out of Dodge.

Agreed, easy traveling call to make. Forget the score ( although it helps here), if a player goes up to shoot and doesn't and comes down with the ball, he just travel.

With that being said, there's nothing wrong with being smart. You're up by 20, why risk getting injured. All the player had to do was toss the ball towards the basket and play continues, then, I would have nothing, no whistle. I talked about this at great length in another thread about block charge calls and what coaches are teaching. I did not realized until engaging this topic that it is such a big philosophy issue in how this game is to be played and coached.

Aside from the fact that the would-be-shooter was actually down by 20....
Also, how do you not know how much coaches are teaching the skill of drawing a charge? Oh, wait, never mind....

Isn't <b>any</b> technical foul at <b>any</b> time during the game a "game interrupter"?:confused:

true dat, true dat.....

question: Would you ever consider B1 falling down in front of A1 driving to score a foul?... especially if it appeared intentional? A1 would then be concerned about his landing and it would certainly create a disadvantage to A1's approach.....

Nope. It's legal unless you think he was trying to induce a false call from the official

No. A "game interrrupter" is an unnecessary (albeit technically correct) call.

Good point Snaqs, so the shooter was the team down in the game, doesn't change the fact though. He still traveled. You still have to judge the play and there was no contact on the play. The shooter choice not to shoot.

Now, if A1 would have shot, missed, and came down on the guy. I could call a block on B2 who's now on the floor, but A1 got to shoot the ball. If he doesn't, my hands are tied, I can't make up stuff.

Now here's where I'm going to contradict myself. In college men's, B2 flops and falls to the floor untouched, however, he gives this loud, OOOHHHH!!!!! That will be a technical foul or a block, each and everytime he does that. The reason, he's trying to show me up by getting me to make a call in his favor even if there was no contact. Players like that bring BS to your game. He needs to be addressed. What I will do is try to get him out the game asap. When he flops and the degree of contact was not as significant as he's making it out to be. Block on him everytime until he stops that BS.

Yes, the shooter "chose" not to shoot. Travel is the right call.
This goes completely against the rules. See Nevada's previous post in this thread for the reason. B2 is allowed this spot on the floor. Disagree with the rule if you like, but enforce it correctly.And yet....

Why only NCAA? This is a technical foul at any level, as far as I know. And tell me, All Powerful One, how are you going to "get him out of the game asap?"

And does everybody know that? Or maybe do some officials just use it as a handy excuse to justify <b>not</b> making a call?

By rule, if you deem it a flop, you need to call the technical foul. If you honestly think he was trying to absorb contact and fell in the process, you can't "honestly" call him for a block. It would take a serious lack of integrity for an official to do that, so I'm sure you wouldn't really do it.

Gee, if I didn't know better, taken in context, this statement seems to imply you'd call fouls just to get a player out of the game.

(sarcasm=on)
Yes, "everybody" knows that. That's exactly what I meant.
(sarcasm=off)

With all due respect you do not have to agree with the terminology. That does not mean that others have to agree with you that this should be called under all circumstances either. ;)

Peace

If he's not playing basketball.....got to go!

You need no longer wonder why your integrity as an "official" gets questioned on this board.

I never did wonder. You can question me all you want, you can doubt everything I say, you can delete all my posts, it's nothing to me. Now my intergrity on the floor is a different story and you don't have to believe this either, but I have no problems on the floor. That's because I deal with my problems right away and reasonably, as required by rules. What I'm saying is if a team that's down by 20 happens to fall over you who has fallen to the floor accidentally, well, reasonably speaking, that's going to be a foul on you. That is why I don't have any problems on the floor.

With all due respect, I never did say that it <b>should</b> be called under <b>all</b> circumstances. Actually, I personally believe that they <b>shouldn't</b> be called under <b>all</b> circumstances. The circumstances will predicate whether the call needs to be made, not whether that call will interrupt the game in any way or not. I don't have a problem with the terminology; I do have a problem with the different interpretations of the terminology.

My point was there seems to be all kinds of different interpretations of what a "game interrupter" actually is. One official's "game interrupter" might be another official's "necessary call".

My biggest problem with the "game interrupter" appellation is that it is used to cover too many situations where it might not be applicable, and it is also being used to justify a failure to call obvious fouls and violations in the holy name of "game flow". I've asked officials why they let a coach get away with pounding a wall, and I've got that "game interrupter" response.I just don't think that a hard and fast rule can be made re: what is a game interrupter and what isn't. What might be a game interrupter in one game might be necessary call to keep order in another game.

Do people take a philosophy or a mechanic too far? Of course they do. There are a lot of philosophies I have seen over the years where people apply to too many situations. But I also do not think that everyone that says a situation is a game interrupter that they are evil either. Does that philosophy apply here? I think that applies to each situation. It is really easy to sit behind a computer screen and referee a game. I just think that sometimes we cannot just dismiss every point of view simply because there are people that might take that philosophy too far at times. Just like anything else officials can get in trouble if they do the wrong things. If officials do not call an obvious violation in a game this in my opinion would apply to me as doing the wrong thing. But even the word "obvious" has different meanings to different people. After all this is not an exact science either.

Peace