Charge?
 

Defender is planted in the lane facing the driving dribbler. Dribbler leaves his feet going for a layup. Defender keeps feet planted but starts to fade back a bit with his upper body right before contact. Contact was in the torso of the defender. I signal PC. Coach says no since the defender was "falling back."

Correct call?

Are you listening to a coach? If it's as you described - correct call.

Sounds good to me. Player gained and maintained a legal guarding position.

There is no requirement that the defender be completely stationary. I'm sure BillyMac will be along with another myth busted shortly.

I told the coach it was right call but I wanted to verify with those that actually know rules.

From the list of misunderstood rules.....compliments of Billy
 

Understand Spence. Gotcha.

17) A defensive player does not have to remain stationary to take a charge. A defender may turn away or duck to absorb contact, provided he or she has already established legal guarding position, which is both feet on the playing court and facing the opponent. The defender can always move backwards or sideways to maintain a legal guarding position and may even have one or both feet off the playing court when contact occurs. That player may legally rise vertically. If the defender is moving forward, then the contact is caused by the defender, which is a blocking foul.

This is not even a LGP issue. In the OP, if the defender is planted in the lane, awaiting the dribbler, it doesn't matter which way he was facing. He still doesn't have to be completely stationary, along as is movement is away from the approaching offensive player.

Definitely!

I actually had a play like this earlier this year. Man to man defense. Point guard beats his man and takes off just inside the free throw line. This kid had some serious hang time. But another defender was standing in the lane guarding his man the whole time, more or less facing the sideline. He looked up and saw the point guard coming at him and kind of shrunk away from the contact. Point guard's knee hit him probably in the upper kidney area, and they both crashed to the ground. Easy PC call. Coach screamed, "No, that can't be on my man! He's gotta square up to take the charge!"

Your mileage may vary.
 

This is the way I explain the rule to rookie officials. Once the defender establishes a legal guarding position, the player may legally move in five of eight directions: left, back left, back, back right, and right. It is illegal for the defender to move forward right, forward, or forward left, and make contact. There may be exceptions for an airborne shooter, but this keeps it simple for rookie officials.

Even if the defender was moving backwards it would be a charge, wouldn't it?

As defender was at the right spot in time

Coach, he was moving backwards and your player still managed to run over him! :D

Yes, PC is proper call.

You missed one direction -- UP. ;)

I often use this line with coaches, and it works every single time. :)

If I think the coach isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, I change the quote to "Coach, defender was moving backwards, which gave your player more room to avoid contact, but he still managed to run over him!"

What about the following scenario?

A1 driving. B1 wants to take charge but starts to fall backwards way too early. He falls to the floor (without having been contacted by A1) and as A1 lands A1 trips over B1 and goes down.

Anything on B1?

If not a T for faking being fouled, then how about a block on B1? What do you think?

T by rule. But a lot of referees make up all kinds of excuses to not assess it. :(

I asked something similar to this a month or so ago, and the consensus seemed to be a) probably a no-call (if A1 has returned to the floor, after a shot, as I presume Spence means here), b) still possibly a charge (if B1 was simply trying to absorb the shock of an imminent charge but was just faked out, as it were. No T unless he's trying to obviously sell a phony call to the officials). Ultimately a HTBT.

But it was far from unanimous, as I recall.

Careful here. The T is assessed when a player fakes being fouled, not because they fall backwards early. They are allowed, by rule, to turn away or back away from contact. Now if the player grunts like they just got hit by a runaway elephant and fly backwards into the third row, all without any contact, then yes, you can probably say they were faking being fouled. But if they close their eyes and start to lean back expecting the contact that never comes, and end up falling down, then I wouldn't call that faking being fouled, and therefore not T-worthy.

Can you see the difference?

Like M&M, I disagree with your ruling. Where is it a T for falling down too early?

BTW, I'm one of the few around here who have actually called this T; but it wasn't for falling down too early.

I have seen and know the difference.

Notice I said "a lot" not all.

I rarely see a player "close their eyes and start to fall backward expecting contact that never comes." What I most frequently witness is the player who, someone has attempted to teach to draw a foul, does not have any or minimal contact then falls to the floor and looks for an official expecting a foul to be called. While the culprit's coach is shouting "thats a charge".

IMO, faking being fouled is different than attempting to "sell" a foul the player believes is either imminent or already transpired.

FAKE: to pretend; simulate; to trick or deceive; anything made to appear otherwise than it actually is; counterfeit;

The situation as described by Spense was the defender "wanting to take a charge" and falling backward without any contact. The question as asked, had the referee already making the judgment that the defender was "wanting the charge" the player then fell backward without contact. You may choose to create contortions in logic to avoid punishing the faker but the information provided in this situation meets the criteria to assess the correct penalty.

Agree.

Ok, here is where you've lost me - how does this meet the definition you provided above? I know taking a charge can be painful, both in the initial contact with the offensive player, and when I hit the ground after contact. I know one way to lessen the pain of the initial contact is to back away from it; I would even contend that's done on instinct. So, how does a player back away from the contact and be "faking" being fouled?

The way I am reading Spence's situation the player is not absorbing or lessening contact the player is "wanting the charge" and is falling down without having been contacted. Simulating contact that did not occur.

Exactly. I don't see absorbing contact as meaning to fall down.

Are you 100% sure this is the case? Then call the T. If you are only 95% sure, then do not call it. That is why you do not see it called often - it is a severe penalty, so you better be absolutely sure the <B>only</B> intent was to deceive, and there was absolutely no other reason that player was on the floor.

I called it about 5 years ago. It was obvious to everyone in the gym, and it came even after mentioning it to the coach after the player had tried the same thing earlier in the game. Similar to calling a T for the actions of the crowd - it can be called, but how often do you actually see it? (Last night's Santa Clara/Gonzaga game, perhaps...) There are other methods of handling those situations, rather than going directly to the T. But if it becomes that obvious, then by all means, penalize accordingly.

How many of you use preventitive officiating the first time it happens, and either talk to the player that is "Flopping", or talk to coach? Again, this would probably depend on the severity or situation it happened for the first time. You may have to bypass the talk and go right to "T". In most cases, I am going to talk with player first. As mentioned above, it is a severe penalty, so you better be 100% sure. Just MO.

Really? How many times have I read on this board that a "Technical Foul is JUST a foul" that we are to call with no other "emotion or fanfare than any other foul."

Really? NFHS must not feel that way they do not include a caveat or warning after describing the penalty for faking a foul.

I am not advocating that every game needs this call but I am saying when it is clear to the referee that a player is trying to cheat by faking being fouled why not treat it as any other situation where the rules clearly state the penalty for a foul and it is clear to the referee that faking has occurred? Why should referees look for "other ways to handle the situation" when the rule book clearly states how to handle it?

You seem to be confusing the emotion of calling some T's with what I am stating is the level of severity of the foul. Usually a T is given for unsporting conduct during an emotional event of some sort, and the purpose of the above statement is to remind us that we are not to become emotional back at the player or coach, but rather simply make the call as unemotional as we would any other travel or foul. It does not change the fact a T is still one of the most severe penalties in the rule book, short of a flagrant ejection.

What does this have to do whether or not we make the call?

Are you aware of the reason the NFHS changed the penalty of excessive swinging of elbows from a T to a violation?

I will always go with the theory of trying to use preventitive officiating, when possible. Sometimes rules are established as guidelines to create a "fairness" to the game. I will not call a 3-second violation in the first minute of the game (unless blatantly advantageous), but rather talk to the player(s) to get them to understand what we are seeing. To me, a whistle at that point of a contest is just a "game interupter", when we are trying to establish a flow to the game. You may say I am overlooking a rule, but with no advantage gained, I will use this method most times. My point is that I would do the same in a "Flop" situation. If it is severe enough, I will bang it. But most times I am going to use preventitive officiating to clear up the matter.

As do I. I take issue with referees who talk, talk, talk and refuse to punish this act of cheating. If you have to talk to or wave-up more than 1 player in a game, it is time to apply the penalty the book calls for.

You don't need to give me the definition of fake. I'm not an idiot. My point is simple. Falling backwards, even without contact, is not necessarily faking. Flopping is not a foul, faking is.

If you can't tell for sure what his intent is, it's not a fake. Personally, if you're going to call it that often, you need to call it when the shooter recoils excessively from contact as well.

Yes, Your Point? ES with contact could be dealt with by existing rules for foul or flagrant contact. ES without contact did not merit the punishment that was temporarily assigned to it for a few seasons. Faking a foul is every bit as cynical an attempt to cheat as the wrong player purposely attempting free throws for his lower FT percentage team mate. I would say more cynical as it places an unmerited foul on an opponent.

Pray tell, what is Flopping?

Is not flopping the act of exaggerating the effect of contact or acting as if contact occurred to achieve the result of influencing the referee to punish the opponent for a minimal or nonexistent event?

I agree with this rule as written. Maybe I'm reading your wrong, but you seem to be implying this is happening far more often than I think it is.

No. Flopping can be anticipating contact and falling backwards to brace for it, only to end up falling too soon. If you want to call this a T, go ahead.

So, how many of these have you called?

I am not saying that it happens in every game. What I take issue with is when referees wave up or talk to players more than once in a game and refuse to apply the correct penalty.

V none this season. JV +/or Freshman 2 or 3.

I've never waved up a player, and have never given this warning more than once in a game.

I don't mind the waving up, though, as that usually is a player who fell with some contact and expects a foul. I think these players actually think they got fouled; that's not faking a foul.

In one season? I don't even see it at the JV level.

Well I guess we have more fakers in Middle TN.:rolleyes: