Block/Player Control/No Call

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Hornets222003

4-23-1 says that LGP is not established if an arm, shoulder, hip, or leg is extended into the path of the offender and contact happens. In what I see in my mind and am trying to describe is just such an instance. The player "flops" and falls to the floor (which I don't think you can do by 4-23-3 IMO), then the offender gets tripped by a leg or something that comes flying into the air during the flop. I'd call this particular instance a block.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Hornets222003

4-23-1 says that LGP is not established if an arm, shoulder, hip, or leg is extended into the path of the offender and contact happens. In what I see in my mind and am trying to describe is just such an instance. The player "flops" and falls to the floor (which I don't think you can do by 4-23-3 IMO), then the offender gets tripped by a leg or something that comes flying into the air during the flop. I'd call this particular instance a block.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Hornets222003

4-23-1 says that LGP is not established if an arm, shoulder, hip, or leg is extended into the path of the offender and contact happens. In what I see in my mind and am trying to describe is just such an instance. The player "flops" and falls to the floor (which I don't think you can do by 4-23-3 IMO), then the offender gets tripped by a leg or something that comes flying into the air during the flop. I'd call this particular instance a block.

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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You don't have any rules backing to do so under NFHS rules. Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court if they got there first without illegally contacting an opponent. And B1 did not contact A1 illegally. That's rule 4-23-1.

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

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Hornets222003

What I have in mind when I think of "flop" is that player that falls to the floor violently after incidental contact trying to "draw" a charge. When that player trips someone, I am more inclined to call the block.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

2) You don't have any rules backing to do so under NFHS rules. Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court if they got there first without illegally contacting an opponent. And B1 did not contact A1 illegally. That's rule 4-23-1.

If the defender lands on the floor after A1 has become airborne, then he did not get to the spot legally. He's moved out of his plane of verticality after the shooter left the floor. If the shooter then lands on him, the defender is not entitled to that spot. Block.

In real life, the play is going to happen quickly enough that this is a block 90% of the time.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

1) If the defender lands on the floor after A1 has become airborne, then he did not get to the spot legally. He's moved out of his plane of verticality after the shooter left the floor. If the shooter then lands on him, the defender is not entitled to that spot. Block.

2) In real life, the play is going to happen quickly enough that this is a block 90% of the time.

1) What's that got to do with anything? That situation has got absolutely nothing to do with what we've been discussing. It's a completely different scenario.
And besides that, if a defender with LGP jumped vertically before A1 became airborne and then fell to the floor after A1 became airborne, under what rule is that a foul on the defender? Did the defender move at or under A1 after A1 was airborne? Nope, he was at that spot before A1 jumped! The defender might have lost his verticality but what he didn't lose was his legal spot on the court.

2) Disagree completely. In real life, any official that knows the rules and knows enough to referee the defense will get that play right every time. And the right call sureashell ain't a block on the situation that we've been discussing. I give my fellow officials a helluva lot more credit than saying they'll screw up that call 90% of the time, Scrappy.



Or are you saying that it really is a block under NFHS rules if a defender falls on the court and an offensive(non-airborne) player then trips over that defender?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) What's that got to do with anything? That situation has got absolutely nothing to do with what we've been discussing. It's a completely different scenario.

It's not completely different. I've simply added a shooter, instead of a dribbler.

And besides that, if a defender with LGP jumped vertically blah, blah, blah. . .

Now you've changed the scenario. Nobody has been talking about a player who has jumped vertically. We've been discussing a player who has flopped backwards onto the floor.

2) Disagree completely. In real life, any official that knows the rules and knows enough to referee the defense will get that play right every time. And the right call sureashell ain't a block on the situation that we've been discussing.

I guess I apologize for changing the scenario slightly. But let me reiterate what I'm talking about, just so we're clear on what I'm actually saying is a block 90% of the time.

A1 dribbles toward the basket. A1 and B1 make slight or no contact. B1 falls backwards of his/her own volition. A1 becomes airborne to attempt a try. On returning to the floor, A1 trips over B1 who is now lying on the floor.

90% of the time, B1 has taken a defensive position (if you can call it that) under A1 after A1 has become airborne. This is not a legal position. If contact ensues that prevents A1 from landing normally, this is going to be a block.

Or are you saying that it really is a block under NFHS rules if a defender falls on the court and an offensive (non-airborne) player then trips over that defender?

You know that's not what I'm saying Although, it could be a block if the defender takes that position on the floor without giving an offensive player without the ball time and distance to change direction.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Hornets222003

You mention that B1 bails out and then "flops". I'd rule that contact incidental and let the play move forward.


If A1 then tripped over B1 after B1 fell to the floor I'd call a block.

There's your original comment, Hornets, and I still disagree with it. And that's what we have been arguing. There's no mention in it of B1 tripping A1 by making any additional movements after falling. You made an all-inclusive statement about a situation that is not all-inclusive.

This is from an old case book play that has since disappeared from the newer case books. I got it out of the 2003-04 case book. That doesn't mean that the concept still isn't valid under NFHS rules. None of the relevant rules have changed.

CASEBOOK PLAY 10.6.1 SITUATION F: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor.
RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

It is not illegal for A1 to trip over B1 unless B1 actually and actively does something illegal to trip A1 after falling.

[Hornets222003]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

There's your original comment, Hornets, and I still disagree with it. And that's what we have been arguing. There's no mention in it of B1 tripping A1 by making any additional movements after falling. You made an all-inclusive statement about a situation that is not all-inclusive.

This is from an old case book play that has since disappeared from the newer case books. I got it out of the 2003-04 case book. That doesn't mean that the concept still isn't valid under NFHS rules. None of the relevant rules have changed.

CASEBOOK PLAY 10.6.1 SITUATION F: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor.
RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

It is not illegal for A1 to trip over B1 unless B1 actually and actively does something illegal to trip A1 after falling.

You are right. The first statement does seem all inclusive AND if so is wrong. I didn't mean for it to come out that way.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Hornets222003

You are right. The first statement does seem all inclusive AND if so is wrong. I didn't mean for it to come out that way.

And that's all that me, Snaqs, mbyron et al were trying to point out.