Block/Player Control/No Call
B1 is tightly guarding A1. A1 has his back to B1. A1 receives a pass. 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.
One official states that this CAN NOT be a player control foul because B1 is leaning back. B1 has lost his 'Legal Guarding Position'. Thus Blocking foul or Play on. Another official states that it could also be a player control foul because B1 did not do anything wrong. A player is entitled to a space on the court. A) Block B) Player Control C) No Call/Play On I know... someone is going to say "Had to be there to see it" |
No where in the rules does it state that LGP is lost if a defender leans backwards. That one official is expressing a total fallacy.
The second official is 100% correct. If the offensive player creates contact which displaces the defender from his legally obtained position a player control foul has been committed. |
Quote:
The description of the play is not sufficient to rule on it. With the player leaning back, incidental contact (which would otherwise have been legal) might have displaced him. I'm not likely to call a PC foul for that. However, the contact might have been illegal and so more than enough to displace the off-balance defender. I would get the PC for that. As I read your second official, he's saying this could be a PC foul, and Nevada seems to agree. And so do I. As described, the defender has LGP and does nothing to lose that. So the one call that should NOT be made here is a block (at least for the contact that sends the defender to the floor). HTBT. :) |
Quote:
If A1 then tripped over B1 after B1 fell to the floor I'd call a block. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
What you can't have on the play using FED rules is a block. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:25am. |