Defender intentionally falls onto hands and knees...
 

12-14 yr old boys summer league using NFHS Rules (with a few modifications):

A fairly large A-player has been establishing position on the block and with ball "backing-down" B-defender with regularity. B-defender is not flopping nor is allowing himself to be run over, but is at times is being forcefully pushed-off/bounced-off his position as A-player backs-up toward hoop.

At half time B-coach complains about the A-player aggressive backing-down, pushing his B-defender off his "position". I basically shrug and say I will keep an eye out for anything worth of an offensive foul.
I mention this to my crewmate, but he just brushes it off as more or less some acceptable hard bumping and the smaller B-player not allowing himself to be run over.

So, on the first A-possession, sure enough the ball goes in to the A-forward and he feels the B-player on his back, so he begins to back down.

However… the B-defender immediately drops to his hands and knees (within his space) and… you guessed it… allows the A-player to tumble over him.

It was a two-man crew and I was trail, so lead official immediately calls the foul… on kneeling B-player.

B-coach goes irate; wanting a travel called on A-player. Lead official says to the coach, "Your player tripped him, coach, and not only that it was unsportsmanlike and intentional."

I mean, part of me equates this to the classic Kevin McHale "pulling the chair out from underneath" maneuver, but on the other hand falling to one’s hands and knees does seem like crossing the line into intentional unsportsmanlike conduct.

Is something like this in the NFHS Rules/casebook?

What if the player decided to get on his hands and knees away from the ball or other players?

What would you guys have called?

Thanks,

P.S. Crewmate says to me after the game, "I'm pretty sure the coach told the kid to do that."

Intentional foul. Not a basketball play, and he intentionally tripped the player. He didn't just pull the chair out, he stuck his leg in there to make sure the player fell. If he'd have just pulled the chair out, he'd have been fine. Just participate in the mutual lean then step away. A1 travels and all is right with the world.

Alternatively, he could have "lost his balance" and fallen over, allowing the ball handler to fall with him. Easy PC foul.

P.S. Your partner was right.

The coach was correct. You guys were failing to properly call a PC foul on the big kid from Team A for displacing his defender.

Given that what else is the smaller defender from Team B now to do? I have no trouble believing that the coach and player conspired to take the hands and knees position as a result of not getting a PC call in the first half.

Now if you would like to debate the legality of the defender's stance, we can do that. I'll start by saying that the NCAA would consider this to not be a legal guarding position, but the NFHS has no such ruling. In fact, the NFHS used to have a case book play that stated any player is entilted to any spot on the floor as long as he gets there first and without illegally contacting an opponent to do so, even if this position happens to be temporarily lying on the floor.

Whatever you decide to do at this point is up to you guys, but just know that you and your partner caused this mess by failing to properly enforce the rules regarding displacement in the first place.

Not quite.
I don't know if I explained it well... not that it changes the call... but the defensive player did not stick a leg out, he just fell to his hands and knees (in his space) and the offensive player backed up and toppled over the defensive player's back.

Regardless... I agree, it is unsportsmanlike and not a basketball move... and the forceful displacement should have been cleaned-up early on.

Always learning...

Thanks

Please direct me to a rule in the NFHS book which says that the defender's stance is illegal, and furthermore that it is a foul on him when the opponent backs up, causes the contact with the stationary defender, and falls over him.

Yup, there sureashell is something in the NFHS rule book. And that something is that it is a <b>PLAYER CONTROL FOUL</b> every damn time a post player forcefully pushes/bounces a defender out of his legal position.

Note...every damn time!

<font size = +8><b>FOUL!!!</b></font>

Letting that go, especially in that age group, is absolutely ridiculous.

Any problems that occurred in the game were you're own making. That ain't the NBA.

Lah me.......unbelievable....:rolleyes:

Amen.

But - was he barking? ;)

Run for your lives!!!:eek:

The dinosaur and I are in complete agreement, which has to be one of the signs of the end of the world. :D

My "leg out" comment was metaphorical, like the chair. My point was, if he'd just been leaning and then removed himself from the situation, it would be clean. By purposefully placing himself in the position to trip his opponent (who apparently didn't see him), I think he's engaging in a non-basketball play where the intent is clearly malicious.

That said, I missed the part where you said the defender was being pushed out of his position. JR and Nevada are right; it's clearly a PC foul. I'm not sure the justification for not calling this.

This is a pretty common misconception, I think. Hopefully, it's mainly among only the spectators. Years ago, friends were critical of a PC call I had made against their son, and they had video of the game. Later, I saw the father and was told, "We watched the video, and that was a bad call. Nobody fell down or anything."

After hearing what happened, the coach definitely has valid gripes about the lack of calls on the block and the foul on the defense player.

Live and learn. :)

Sounds to me B1 is setting a blind screen. Although I may be wrong since he didn't assume the position until after A1 got the ball.

Displacement
 

I think the key item here is that a player with an obvious size and strength advantage is displacing the defender by backing him into the paint. A player that close to the basket gains a huge advantage by only displacing his defender a couple of inches. I would submit that at some point, we needed a PC foul. That possibly could have ended the behavior there, or the kid would have kept fouling and been on the bench. Either way, problem solved.

When the kid fell to his knees (which I'm sure the coach tells him to do) we definitely have a block, and possibly an intentional foul. The moral of the story is that by calling the first foul, the story doesn't continue to unfold from there.

Also, I'd be interested to hear the dialog with the coach. At some point, there needs to be a conversation why the crew is passing on the contact. A good coach is going to ask so that he can properly instruct his player on how to defend.

So could you tell us what - in your mind- IS worthy of an offensive foul?? Seems to me that this is exactly what the case book and rule books talk about when referring to the offensive player "backing down" the defender. Had this been called even once in the first half, this little lizard would never have grown into the dinosaur that it became.

I've been lucky in that I've only experienced two athletic injuries in my life. One was because this foul wasn't called. The official didn't believe that this is a foul, because the contact was "so minor". In the end, the offender backed me down, jumped up for a turn-around jumper, came down oddly, and landed on my ankle. Crutches for 3 weeks.

Call the foul! It's quite an easy call.

Your keyboard is broken btw. All sorts of type sizes coming out of it.

POE 3 in the 2007-08 rule book:

<b><u>3. DISPLACEMENT:</u></b>
<i>Displacement is a foul and must be called.</i>
<b>A. POST PLAY.</b> <i>When a player dislodges an opponent from an established position by pushing or "backing in", it is a foul."</i>

Couldn't be clearer. The exact same POE has been put in the rulebook several times recently. Now we know why.

And I just saw these guys outside my window!!! What's next - Billy Packer actually saying something intelligent? Naw - that's way too impossible.

http://fenixrysing.files.wordpress.c...lying_pigs.jpg

I put in a work order...the IT department told me to STFU. How rude!!

Now we know where Dan works. I'd have never guessed it.

STFU

Well, then. I stand corrected.

Only took him 5 minutes to type all that! He's getting good with all this new-fangled computery stuff.:D

Great, now I gotta wipe the diet pepsi off my screen yet again...

I've got to (reluctantly) point out the coach might actually be somewhat smart in trying this tactic. First off, he is absolutely correct in asking for a foul initially on the backing down. It's not only a POE with the NFHS, but it's also a POE at the NCAA-W level. (I'm not sure about NCAA-M, but it wouldn't surprise me.) But I'm also not entirely convinced having his player take that stance is unsporting. In NFHS, B1 is entitled to a spot on the floor, whether standing or lying down. If B1 takes that position after A1 receives the ball, there are no time and distance in screening requirements. If B1 were to trip and go down, then A1 falls over B1, wouldn't we (probably) call travelling? Why would we call a T if B1 takes the same position intentionally? Why do penalize B for taking a legal position, and A is not aware of the position of their defender?

Ok, I agree it's not really a "basketball play", and I wouldn't argue too strenuously if a partner called a T. But I'm still impressed the coach knew enough about the rules to give it a shot.

My first thought is an (leaving aside the valid point regarding the apparently missed PC calls) intentional foul. B1 is intentionally tripping A1.

That said, I understand the point about the rule not really having a provision for a foul here. B1 is stationary and not holding an illegal position. My only thought is the "purpose and intent" clause, not allowing a player to gain an unfair advantage not intended by the rules. I can't help but think of this move as an unfair tactic gaining an unfair advantage by tripping a "blind" opponent.

I'm still not sure my initial thought is correct.

And I don't entirely disagree with your line of thinking; it's not a basketball play. However, B1 is not moving, and is certainly not initiating the contact, given the play we are discussing. It's another point entirely if B1 were to slide or roll into the back of A1's legs.

Why am I getting a sense of deja vu here?

Yeah, me too.

Personally, I wouldn't deem the action "unsporting". Instead, I'd call it "illegal", using the concept outlined in FED rule 10-6-1--<i>"A player shall not hold, push charge, <b>TRIP</b> or impede the progress of an opponent by.... bending his/her body into other than a normal position, nor <b>use any rough tactics</b>."</i> Going to the floor like that is not a normal position and it sureasheck is "rough tactics" to deliberately trip an opponent. That's close enough for me.

The other point is that I don't think that you can call a "T". It would have to be a personal foul of some kind, most likely an intentional personal foul.

My take on it......intentional personal foul. But I sureasheck ain't ever gonna make a call like that if I've let the post player get away with forcefully pushing/bouncing a defender off a legal position. That's called adding insult to injury.

Thoughts?

I usually have none.

Oh, wait, you're talking about the subject at hand? I agree it shouldn't be a T. I'm just not convinced it can be a foul, either common or intentional, as the player is stationary and not the one initiating contact, especially given the context of the original play. A1 has been backing down B1 in earlier plays, so if A1 is expecting to do the same thing and falls over a stationary B1, I can't see how B1 is responsible for the contact. What specifically is B1 doing that would be considered "illegal"? Tripping is usually an active act, such as sticking a leg or arm out in front of a moving player. Also, how can sitting there motionless be considered rough play? It just seems hard to pick out a good, legitimate reason for calling a foul in this case, even though I think one could be called.

If a defensive player was standing stationary but leaning their torso out to their left side with their arms straight out to their sides, and an offensive player driving for a basket runs into the defensive player's outsretched arm and/or shoulder, would you call a blocking foul even if the defensive player was stationary? What's the difference? This clearly falls under 'bending his/her body into other than a normal position'.

Then anytime a player is on the floor, that player is responsible for contact, even if that player is stationary, only because it's not a "normal" position?

No. The difference is intentionally putting yourself in an illegal position that disrupts an opponent's ability to get where they want to go. Someone laying on the floor after having fallen did not put themselves in that position intentionally. But if you get down on your hands and knees behind an offensive player, for the purpose of having them trip over you (what other purpose could it be - looking for a contact lens?), then that's a foul.

For the record, I'd like to note that Dan's post is nasty. ;)

I agree with the record.

As an aside, McHale learned the pulling the chair out manuever from Rick Mahorn who did it to either Parish or McHale on successive trips down the floor. It was hilarious. [Maybe not if you liked the Celtics, but I am not in that camp.]

Where in the rules does it describe the difference between "intentionally" being in that position, vs. "unintentional"? Are you saying if a player "unintentionally" puts themselves in that position, they aren't responsible for the foul? Where in the rules does it say that? Where in the rules does it say being on your hands and knees is an "illegal position"? What about the statement in 4-23-1 that says, "Every player is entitled to a spot on the court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent." B1 certainly meets that criteria. B1 is perfectly still, and A1 initiates the contact by backing into B1. If A1 trips over B1's outstretched legs or arms, I can use that as a basis for a foul. But if A1 simply trips over B1's torso, what rule basis do I have for calling a foul on B1? Why wouldn't I call a travel on A1 (assuming A1 held onto the ball while falling)?

Look, I know it don't feel right. But unless someone can come up with a good rule reference, I can't see justification for calling a foul on B1. Again, kudos to the coach for coming up with this scenario.

There, I fixed it for you...just another comment from the peanut gallery!!:D

Is this where I'm supposed to clap?

I hope so, because I am.

FED rule 10-6-1--"A player shall not hold, push charge, TRIP or impede the progress of an opponent by.... bending his/her body into other than a normal position, nor use any rough tactics."

Yup, to me, this qualifies as a "rough tactic" as it is obviously designed to trip A1.

Well, first off, B1 is not using any rough tactics because they are motionless. Secondly, can you give me the rule definition of "normal position"? And usually the intent of this rule is to penalize contact initiated by the player. I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, I just do not want to read something into a rule that wasn't intended. That leads to calling things based on my feelings, rather than how the rules intended.

In the parallel thread, I'm kind of leaning towards issuing the unsporting T, for the reasons supplied. I think it does fall under the same intent as the penalty for the "barking dog" play, which also was not "illegal" under any rule, but was determined to be a non-basketball play and penalized as such.

Ultimately for me, it's no different than sticking out your leg to purposely trip someone. I am not struggling at all to see this play as a foul on the defender.

I think it is a rough tactic, as it is purposefully tripping a player. A player may stick his leg out and be completely motionless when the opponent hits the leg and falls on his face. Motion at the point of contact is not required for a rough tactic.
Secondly, I think putting oneself into an odd position (sticking a leg out, leaning the torso to the side, getting on hands and knees in the OP) is initiating contact. The latter is also deceptive and rough.
Third, I think the rules allow for a bit of leeway here, as they specifically prohibit the gaining of an advantage not intended by the rules. I'm pretty sure getting this travel call (or a PC) would fit into the category of unintended advantages.

That said, I have no problem with the T. The barking dog doesn't involve any contact, so T is your only real option. With this non-basketball play, there is contact, therefore allowing either a blocking foul or an intentional foul. Personally, I like the intentional option in most cases. In the OP, I prefer the common foul; since as has been determined by consensus, the whole problem would have likely been avoided had a PC or two been rightly called earlier on A1.

I understand what you're saying; I wonder if we're envisioning two different plays. I consider tripping an "active" act, where an arm or leg is put in the path of a moving player. Perhaps the play you are picturing is where A1 receives the ball, then B1 goes down as A1 starts their move. B1 would still be moving, or had just gotten to their knees at the time of contact. I would agree this could fall under tripping and/or rough play. The play I was picturing was B1 going to their knees as the pass is coming coming to A1, and there is a pause before A1 starts their move back. Iow, two separate acts; A1 would have easily avoided contact if they had looked back. That's where I can't see penalizing B1 if they have their spot on the floor that was obtained without contact.

Let me throw another (admiitedly third-world) twist in this: you have already called B1 for a block/trip on this play earlier in the game. The coach, being a persistent a$$, tells B1 to try it again. A1, knowing what happened before, this time turns around sees B1 go down, and purposely runs over B1 to get the call again. B1 is again motionless on their knees, but this time A1 sees them. Do you make the same block call again? How does intent change the call? What rule do you point to that shows how intent changes the call?

And, yes, that coach wouldn't have been as persistent had the team-control foul been called earlier.

1st time, I call the pf and warn the coach. 2nd time, I call the T on B1.

I realize I'm a bit late in the game posting on this, but to me, this is at LEAST an intentional personal foul and very possibly a flagrant personal.