Block/Player Control/No Call

[Hornets222003]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Just as A1 turns towards B1, B1 starts to lean back(bail out?). A1 makes contact so that B1 falls (or flops) to the floor.

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.

[Adam]

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.

If the contact comes before the fall, it's very tough to rule it a flop, and the rule explicitly allows a player to brace for contact by moving away. IMO, if B1 is moving away from A1 and still gets run over, A1 deserves the foul.
If, OTOH, B1's movement away from A1 causes him to lose his balance such that incidental contact finishes the job, I'm ok with incidental contact.

Further, in NFHS rules, you cannot call a player for a foul if he's merely lying on the floor and someone trips over him.

[Hornets222003]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If the contact comes before the fall, it's very tough to rule it a flop, and the rule explicitly allows a player to brace for contact by moving away. IMO, if B1 is moving away from A1 and still gets run over, A1 deserves the foul.
If, OTOH, B1's movement away from A1 causes him to lose his balance such that incidental contact finishes the job, I'm ok with incidental contact.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Further, in NFHS rules, you cannot call a player for a foul if he's merely lying on the floor and someone trips over him.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

A "flop" is defined in the rule book as faking being fouled. A flop involves very little or no contact. If the contact caused the player to fall, it is not a flop by definition. It's a judgment call. But even if you judge it to be a flop, you have NO rules backing under NFHS rules to call a block if the offensive player moves forward and then trips over the defender on the ground. The defender has a legal position on the court under NFHS rules, even though that defender might be flat on his back.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Further, in NFHS rules, you cannot call a player for a foul if he's merely lying on the floor and someone trips over him.

We got into a huge discussion in my association about this one last season. The rules interpreter and I, together with about 2 other people, were on one side ruling this a travel (our case had the ball handler going to the floor with the ball after tripping). Everybody else thought it had to be a block, on the grounds that lying on the floor is not LGP.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Hornets222003

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


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

1) Nope, the original post said that "A1 makes contact SO that B1 falls or flops..." Cause and effect. If the contact caused the fall or flop, there's nowayinhell you can call that incidental contact. If the contact hindered the opponent from participating in normal defensive movement, you can't call the contact incidental. That's NFHS rule 4-27-2. You can't play defense if someone knocks you on your azz.

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) Nope, the original post said that "A1 makes contact SO that B1 falls or flops..." Cause and effect.

It's not so clear to me: I read it as "before and after," which would be consistent with cause and effect but wouldn't entail it.

If it really was cause and effect, then that's pretty obviously a PC foul for the displacement. I agree. I suppose the OP could clarify what happened.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

It's not so clear to me: I read it as "before and after," which would be consistent with cause and effect but wouldn't entail it.

If it really was cause and effect, then that's pretty obviously a PC foul for the displacement. I agree. I suppose the OP could clarify what happened.

I read the "so" as being cause and effect. Iow, the contact by A1 caused the fall or flop. No matter what, judgment call. PC or incidental contact.

What you can't have on the play using FED rules is a block.

[Hornets222003]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) Nope, the original post said that "A1 makes contact SO that B1 falls or flops..." Cause and effect. If the contact caused the fall or flop, there's nowayinhell you can call that incidental contact. If the contact hindered the opponent from participating in normal defensive movement, you can't call the contact incidental. That's NFHS rule 4-27-2. You can't play defense if someone knocks you on your azz.

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.

He said in the OP that the player flops. I've already stated what I think of when I hear flop. Usually, when I see a flop, there is contact, but the contact is usually not enough alone to displace the player or cause the player to fall.

The usually fall on their own accord, and in some cases will trip an offensive player when they have fallen to the floor. I'm saying that I would call this particular instance a block.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Hornets222003

1) Usually, when I see a flop, there is contact, but the contact is usually not enough alone to displace the player or cause the player to fall.

2)They usually fall on their own accord, and in some cases will trip an offensive player when they have fallen to the floor. I'm saying that I would call this particular instance a block.

1) If so, you have either incidental contact or a technical foul. Those are the only two choices under NFHS rules. But it's always a judgment call by the calling official. If he thought that the contact caused the fall, he could also call a PC foul by rule.

2) Maybe you would call a block, but you have no rules justification under NFHS rules to make that call. If you disagree(and you obviously do), then supply rules citations to back up your assertation. I've already cited the pertinent NFHS rules above that state that it can't be a block.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by mbyron

We got into a huge discussion in my association about this one last season. The rules interpreter and I, together with about 2 other people, were on one side ruling this a travel (our case had the ball handler going to the floor with the ball after tripping). Everybody else thought it had to be a block, on the grounds that lying on the floor is not LGP.

There was a lengthy discussion on here not that long ago about that very topic.

[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.

[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.

[Hornets222003]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

[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.