Block/Player Control/No Call

[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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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!

[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.

[Zoochy]

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.'

[Adam]

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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.