Block/Player Control/No Call

[Zoochy]

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"

[Nevadaref]

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

+1

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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.