Part II: Defender drops on hands and knees...
 

Part I post seemed to get a little far afield from the intial intent.

Forget about displacement or offensive foul calling or non-calling and please allow the intent and focus of this post be about the legality of the B-player dropping to his hands and knees.

The ball goes in to the A-forward on the block and he begins to dribble backwards toward the goal.
However… the B-defender who is between A-player and goal immediately drops to his hands and knees (within his space) and… you guessed it… the A-player backs-up and tumbles over B-player.

1) What is the NFHS ruling on this and what would you guys call and on whom?

2) The assumption is that the B-player has "intentionally" fallen to his hands and knees in order to "stop" the A-player, however what if the B-player falls to his hands and knees as a result of feigning injury of some kind? How would we know the difference?

Thanks,
Paul

If you think the defender is doing it deliberately to cause the offensive player to trip over him/her, then you are within the rules to call a block, an intentional foul, possibly even an unsporting Technical (not so sure about that one, but you could probably pull it off).

However, in the original thread, based on what you yourself posted, there should have been some - at least one - PC fouls called on the offensive post for "backing down" the defender...then this situation would never have come up.

Somehow, I don't think being on your hands and knees qualifies as being in "legal guarding position". What do you guys think? :confused:

I agree being on your hands and knees is not legal guarding position. Hmm, but what if the defender started with legal guarding position (facing the opponent, both feet on the ground); don't the rules say they can move after obtaining legal guarding position? (I'm just trying to channel Nevada.)

But what would be your call if the defender B1 was on the ground, perhaps diving for a loose ball, and A1 picks up the ball, then trips over B1? Legal guarding position would have no bearing on this call, correct?

I think a legal guarding position isn't required for a stationary player.
Time and distance aren't required for a player guarding the ball handler.

There's nothing inherently illegal about being on his hands and knees and then being contacted by a moving player with the ball.

1. If you think the player might actually be injured, stop play and have him replaced. Beckon the coach and make him choose whether or not to request a TO.
2. If you think the player is "feigning" injury. Stop play and have him replaced. Beckon the player and, well, you get the point. Treat it like a real injury even if you think it's not.
3. If you're at all in doubt, at least stop play and ask him if he's ok. He'll either be grateful or embarrassed. Either way, you've done your job.

I agree; it would be a different matter if B1 were to roll or slide into the back of A1.

(I'm getting this strong sense of deja 'vu....)

Yeah, me too.

Uh... no "forceful" backing-down in this scenario.

Déjà vu all over again, indeed

Thanks,
Paul

As I posted in t'other thread.....

NFHS rule 10-6-1 is close enough for me, and also meets the purpose and intent of the playing rules imho.

NFHS 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 use any rough tactics."</i>

That general rules statement covers the situation being discussed. The defender is bending their body into a position that could hardly be called "normal" on a basketball court, and tripping an opponent can also easily be labeled "rough tactics".

Soooooo.......imo it can be justified to call it an intentional personal foul.

It's completely different than a player slipping and falling to the court, and then having an opponent trip over them. The first act was done to deliberately gain an unfair advantage not intended under the purpose and intent of the rules. The second was done accidentally.

Again, jmho.

Have you got any response to the almost unanimous answers that you received in the other thread? You know, where everybody told you that it was completely ridiculous NOT to call an immediate player control foul on a post player with the ball dislodging a defender with a legal stance. Have you changed your mind on what the right call should have been under those circumstances?

Just kinda wondering....because I haven't seen any response from you yet to the answers that you received in the other thread.

This was my first reply within that thread...

I will say it again:
"it is unsportsmanlike and not a basketball move... and the forceful displacement should have been cleaned-up early on."

And even one more time, for those in the back:
"it is unsportsmanlike and not a basketball move... and the forceful displacement should have been cleaned-up early on."

However, my intent in these posts was always about focusing on the legality of the defender dropping to his hands and knees.

So, I started a new thread to focus on what really was my question, (taking the backing-down out of the equation), and less on all this peanut gallery "Why did you allow the milk to be spilled?" rhetoric.

Sheesh.

Thanks,
Paul

Hey Paul, I understand your frustration BUT you've been on the board for over half a year now. That being said, you should know how it goes 'round here... especially during the off-season when things are slower. With the great knowledge that one can obtain here also comes inside jokes, smart a$$ comments, topic switching, etc. I had trouble recognizing that fact when I first joined, but dealing with the guys/gals here helps one develop the thick-skinned quality that all great officials need.
Basically, nobody is forcing you to post on this "open to the public" forum, if you want direct answers w/out the hoopla... I suggest that you find a mentor!

Regarding a defender dropping to knees/hands with the intent of letting the oppoent trip over them, I think you have 4 legitimate options....all against the defender:

1. personal foul (block)
2. intentional personal foul
3. T for unsportsmanlike conduct
4. flagrant T

Which get's called really depends on the game. If it is clearly an act intended to harm the opponent...with our without contact...#4. If there is tension and I feel many players are on edge for whatever reason but absent intent to harm, #3. Put the hammer down and stop the silliness right there. If the game has been completely uneventful and it just seems like a goofy play out of nowhere, #1.

Keep it Simple ...
 

Simple. To the point. Proper citation.

That's, that's, that's all folks.

Are you kidding?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the physical position of the defender on his hands and knees. That is not what any official should penalize.
The problem here is the tactic of purposely adopting that position with the intent to put his opponent in a dangerous situation. Simply put the idea of the defender is to do something unfair and unsafe. That cannot be allowed and must be penalized.

I would not penalize based upon the physical contact which may or may not take place in this specific case. I would penalize based upon the mental process undertaken by the defender. His conciously chose to do something not within the spirit of fair play. That meets the definition of an unsporting foul. Thus the penalty that I select is an unsporting technical foul and it occurs as soon as the defender adopts this position, but I may withhold the whistle to allow the opponent to finish his scoring play and then enforce the penalty. So again any physical contact is not the central issue.

I know that the criticism of this method of handling the situation is going to be that an official cannot read the mind of a player or that one doesn't know if the defender is injured. In answer to that I say that it can quickly be determined whether the player is hurt or not, and while an official can never know exactly what a player or coach is thinking reasonable determinations of such can be made from their actions. Afterall, that is why we get paid the big bucks! ;)

"Peanut gallery"? "Sheesh"?

From some rookie clown who obviously hasn't figured out which end of the whistle to blow yet?

You didn't learn a damn thing, did ya? You also still haven't learned what was really important about the whole situation that you originally posted either, have ya?

Hint.....it ain't some once-in million, might-never-happen situation. It's about a new official that very obviously doesn't know some very basic rules relating to illegal contact.

Lah me....peanut gallery.....:rolleyes:

JR is right, but his words are rather harsh, so let me put it another way.

Here's what you need to do:

1. Admit that you F'd up the situation. -- No big deal. We all have at one time or another. That's how experience is gained.

2. Learn from it. -- Study the rules regarding displacement and do a better job in the future of calling PC fouls for that so that the situation does not degenerate into a mess.-- This is the key step.

You will be an improved official if you take something positive from this bad experience.

Good luck.

Speak for yourself, grasshopper. :p

exactly what I was thinking!

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Mark Padgett
Somehow, I don't think being on your hands and knees qualifies as being in "legal guarding position". What do you guys think? :confused:
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

LGP has nothing to do with this play. A player is entitled to any spot on the floor per 4-23-1.

If that doesn't do it for you, the defender could establish INITIAL LGP and then does not have to keep both feet on the floor or continue facing the opponent in order to maintain it per 4-23-3. Turning away or ducking is specifically allowed.

This is not being playful or a lesson in thick skin or anything else but an insult.

Why?

Take a deep breath PSidbury...

You put some VERY experienced and intelligent officials in a "peanut gallery"...

calm down and LISTEN to these veterans.

If you want to trade barbs...trust me...you are messing with the best here.

LISTEN to these veterans...IMO, you will become a better official.

Whatinthehell do you expect from the peanut gallery? And if it's coming from the peanut gallery, why should you give a damn anyway?

Consider the source and just ignore. It's all just meaningless rhetoric anyway, as you previously said.

My opinion: The "entitled to any spot on the floor" and the related "dives for the ball and A trips over the prone player" rules / cases are for instances where basketball plays are being made.

Dropping to the hands and knees in the situation described is not a baketball play.

I'd penalize as Camron suggests in post #14.

Well, I agree with Bob. ;)

I think I can live with the unsporting T, as it is not too much different than the "barking dog" play. And, if that's the case, I wouldn't need to wait to see if anyone gets injured, or if there's any contact at all.

Your question on the legality of what the defender did was answered within the first couple of replies on BOTH threads. As far as the peanut gallery, spilled milk rhetoric - good grief. You screwed up by not calling the PC foul, and you screwed up by telling the coach what you did...that was pointed out to you and you didn't like it. So be it...we now know who can't handle constructive criticism.:rolleyes:

Paul, I hope you understand that the many officials who replied to your initial post are trying to show you that this situation occurred because of your crew's failure to properly adjudicate the rules.

Defenders who "flop" are surrendering their legal guarding position. Any contact with a defender in an illegal guarding position is a block. If you can determine the defender intentionally undercut the offensive player than you may consider an intentional foul.

While I agree this is a defensive foul. I disagree with these two sentences. Players who fall backwards are not surrendering their LGP.
Players without LGP are not always responsible for contact.