The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 24, 2010, 12:06am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 715
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"
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 24, 2010, 12:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,518
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 24, 2010, 06:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
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.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 24, 2010, 07:44am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Seattle
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoochy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 24, 2010, 07:55am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornets222003 View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 24, 2010, 08:03am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Seattle
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 24, 2010, 08:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 24, 2010, 08:08am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornets222003 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 24, 2010, 08:13am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
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.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 24, 2010, 08:14am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornets222003 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 24, 2010, 08:19am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 24, 2010, 08:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Seattle
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 24, 2010, 08:48am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornets222003 View Post
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.

Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 08:50am.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 24, 2010, 08:51am
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 24, 2010, 08:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Seattle
Posts: 37
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Player Control and Team Control fouls MelbRef Basketball 15 Mon Dec 15, 2008 01:43pm
Player Control or Block regs1234 Basketball 10 Fri Feb 01, 2008 03:01pm
Block/Charge/Player Control? RookieDude Basketball 16 Sun Dec 29, 2002 06:02pm
Player Control or Block? Sleeper Basketball 16 Sun Nov 24, 2002 02:30pm
Player control or no call? Kelly Spann Basketball 4 Wed Dec 22, 1999 09:15am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:59pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1