Block/Player Control/No Call

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by 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.'

Your evaluation situation is unfortunate, but you can take it from another "senior, State caliber official" that your understanding of the rule is 100% correct. It's tough to find quality evaluators.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

True.
If one pays attention to Zoochy's posts on this forum, which I'd like to see more of, one will notice that they convey a very solid grasp of the rules.
He is never asking a basic question. There is always something there to make us ponder.

[Hornets222003]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Yes Sir. I have read it. I understand that every player is entitled to their spot. And I also understand that if the defender is on the floor and the offensive player happens to come by and trip without the defender doing anything then it isn't a foul on the defender.
What I'm arguing is that if that player lifts legs into the air and they contact the offender as the offender passes and the offender falls from the contact then it's a foul. And that is listed in the rule that you referenced.

[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.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

Not sure I agree here.

If B1's position was in A1's path to start with (which is usually the case in such "flops"...otherwise we wouldn't be discussing what to do if they fall...it would have already been a block), falling backwards to the floor is no more taking is landing spot away than was already the case.

Now, if B1 falls INTO A1's path, fine, you can have a block. But really, how many times do the player's fall sideways....which is probably the case needed to fall into A1's path.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not sure I agree here.

If B1's position was in A1's path to start with (which is usually the case in such "flops"...otherwise we wouldn't be discussing what to do if they fall...it would have already been a block), falling backwards to the floor is no more taking is landing spot away than was already the case.

Now, if B1 falls INTO A1's path, fine, you can have a block. But really, how many times do the player's fall sideways....which is probably the case needed to fall into A1's path.

Agree with this. If the defender in A1's path(such as in the original post) started to fall straight backwards (either from incidental contact or to try and avoid contact) before A1 became airborne, you can't penalize him for landing on the floor after A1 became airborne. The defender had a legal position on the court right from the start of his "flop" to the time he ended up on the floor. And if the defender had LGP when A1 became airborne, that defender can then legally duck, turn, fall straight backwards, etc. The defender can't move sideways, forward or stick out an appendage into A1's landing spot after A1 became airborne.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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

2)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.


3)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.

1) Disagree. You've added an airborne shooter. That's different than a "shooter. A shooter might still be on the floor when the initial contact/flop was made. No matter what, if the defender had a LGP or a legal position on the court either before or after A1 became airborne, the defender can still legally duck, turn or fall straight backwards. That's what we've been saying.

2) See my response to Camron. If B1 who is in A1's path had either a LGP or a legal position on the court and then fell straight backward from either incidental contact or trying to avoid contact, B1 is legally allowed to land on the court. That is a legal position. I can't think of any rule that says that it isn't under the described circumstances.

3) Yup, but in the OP, there is nothing that says the defender did not have a legal position before the incidental contact/flop. We've been answering on the assumption from the OP that B1 had either a LGP or a legal spot on the court.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not sure I agree here.

If B1's position was in A1's path to start with, falling backwards to the floor is no more taking is landing spot away than was already the case.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If B1 who is in A1's path had either a LGP or a legal position on the court and then fell straight backward from either incidental contact or trying to avoid contact, B1 is legally allowed to land on the court. That is a legal position.

So you guys are going to allow a player to move into an airborne player's landing spot after that player has gone airborne? He's not turning or ducking, as allowed in 4-23-3e. He has intentionally left his defensive spot and moved (backwards, I grant you) into the shooter's landing spot.

In an extreme example, suppose A1 is able to jump clear over B1, who has obtained a LGP. B1, seeing that A1 will completely clear him, takes two strides straight backwards so that A1 lands directly on him. You gonna say this is ok? He had LGP and moved only backwards. This is exactly the same as what you point out above. So he still has LGP?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

1) So you guys are going to allow a player to move into an airborne player's landing spot after that player has gone airborne? He's not turning or ducking, as allowed in 4-23-3e. He has intentionally left his defensive spot and moved (backwards, I grant you) into the shooter's landing spot.

2) In an extreme example, suppose A1 is able to jump clear over B1, who has obtained a LGP. B1, seeing that A1 will completely clear him, takes two strides straight backwards so that A1 lands directly on him. You gonna say this is ok? He had LGP and moved only backwards. This is exactly the same as what you point out above. So he still has LGP?

1) Rule 4-24-4(c) says that if a defender is guarding a player with the ball, then that defender must have established a legal position BEFORE the player went airborne. Note that it says a "legal position" and not a "legal guarding position". Did B1 have a legal position in the play being discussed. Yes, indeedy!
And 4-23-3(b,c&d) say that the defender isn't required to face the opponent, can move laterally or obliquely to maintain LGP, can raise hands and jump within his vertical plane, and may turn or duck to avoid the contact. What the rules say that you can't do is stick out an appendage and have primary contact made on that appendage, or be moving towards the player with the ball when contact occurs. Iow, if the defender is there legally, and stays in front of the offensive player--airborne or not--the onus by rule lies with the offensive player.
The defender is NOT moving INTO the airborne shooter's landing spot. The defender was legally IN the airborne shooter's landing spot BEFORE the airborne shooter went airborne. And the defender never moved INTO the airborne shooter's landing spot AFTER the offensive player went airborne either. Nope, he didn't move sideways or forward. The defender just maintained his legal spot on the court.
Can you cite a rule that will back up what you're saying? I can't think of any.

2) That play has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing. TWP.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by 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'

Scrappy, this is what we've been discussing. B1 falling backward to avoid the contact and A1 going straight forward and landing on the defender. Are you really going to call that a block 90% of the time?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Did B1 have a legal position in the play being discussed. Yes, indeedy!

In the play that I outlined above (understanding that it's different from the play in the original post), the answer is no. The defender is still moving to his/her spot (on the floor) while the shooter is airborne 90% of the time. That's my point. Once the shooter (or any player, really) is airborne, the defender better not still be moving to his/her spot or it's a block.

2) That play has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing. TWP.

I understand that (except for the TWP part). I've already apologized for changing the original scenario. If you think there should be a new thread for my scenario, I wouldn't object. But in MY scenario, 90% of the time, the call is a block.