If the player on the floor moves something into the ball handler, that's an easy block call.

More controversial is the case where the defender is lying still on the floor and the ball handler trips over him. That's what the rest of us (or at least JR and I) are saying cannot be a block under NFHS rules.

I would agree with you guys on that one. If the player is just lying on his back, I don't think I would necessarily call a foul either.

And LGP is not required to absolve a player from responsibility for the contact.

IMO, if you think the player is guilty of faking a foul, warn, whack, or both. I've found that, at the high school level, coaches yell at their players more for this than they question us.

And the original post said that B1 had LGP and one official thought the he lost LGP when he leaned back. Well, we know that isn't true under the rules. You can't lose LGP just be leaning back or retreating. And there's no mention at all of contact being made BEFORE B1 was on the floor except for the contact that iniatiated by A1.

Did you bother to read the rule that I cited? NFHS rule 4-23-1 which is under GUARDING? That says that "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided that such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent." Did B1 get to his spot lying on the court without illegally contacting an opponent? According to the original post, the answer is "yes". If B1 hadn't, then a blocking foul for the illegal contact would have been called on him BEFORE he fell on the floor. But there was no rules justification for calling a block on B1 on the initial contact because B1 had a LGP, never lost that LGP by rule, and A1 initiated the contact by moving into B1.

Keep looking for rules justification to call a block. I sureasheck can't think of any.

True. Just be ready for the cries of "common sense," or my personal favorite, "incorrect application of the rules."

I know you guys are extending the original post to include a player on the ground. Contact occurred while both players were upright. I was observed by a 'senior, State caliber' official. He asked me about my Player Control Foul. I told him from my angle I saw A1 turn and have torso/torso contact w/B1. He said from his angle he saw B1 lean back, not sideways, absorb minimal contact, and in his words, Flopped. Then went on to say that B1 lost LGP when he leaned back, thus the ruling would be either 'No Call or Blocking Foul'. I used the same Rules/examples that JR, Nevada and Snaqwells used to justify my call. He then proceeded to write additional comments on my evaluation form. He would not tell me what the comment was, but I am assuming it is along the lines of 'Argumentive. Does not respect constructive criticism.'

Too bad we can't critique the evaluators. Sometimes a bit of book smacking is in order.

Exactly. That's the primary issue here: some officials seem to think that the ONLY way to avoid being guilty of a block is for the defender to have LGP.

I've had such officials bite the bullet on this one: B2 is walking up the court to guard A2. A1 dribbles up behind B2 and runs into him. They want to call B2 for a block because he doesn't have LGP. Ha!

Very applicable to the one that Zoochy got. It's tough when the person being evaluated has a better understanding of the rules than the evaluator.

That's when you have to learn when to fold 'em. While you may have the winning hand, sometimes it's best for your career to fold anyway.

Had a veteran partner recently call OOB on a player returning to the court because he didn't establish with both feet. I know that's why he called it because he took a moment to explain the call. He's a guy who has given me great feedback in the past, and I respect him immensely. I've had evaluator-level partners get into discussions about pivot cheeks when an airborne player gathers the ball and proceeds to land on his arse.

Yet I know I have a lot to learn from these folks about handling coaches and problem players, as well as positioning and other nuances.

Hey, I was just going to say that. :p

And then, I was going to say that. ;)

But, I guess I'm not getting on the board early enough, so I will defer to the earlybirds.

Should I forward the link of this thread to the evaluator?
Or do I just 'fold'?
Can anything good come out of this?

Fold. You don't know how the evaluator is going to respond. Politics can be tough but they're a fact of life in some instances unfortunately.

JMO.

+1

There are worse things than a vet mistakenly thinking you blew a rule.

Fold. If he was insisting he was right, sending him this link isn't going to convince him otherwise, and will only reinforce his opinion that you're a "yeah-but-guy."

If he was actually noting that you knew the rule well, sending him the link will only hurt. There is nothing good that can come from pushing this.