Player starting to fall in anticipation of charge

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Help a brotha out...Rules reference, please?

I'm guessing the reference is to "faking" being fouled ... 10-3-6-f

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

I'm guessing the reference is to "faking" being fouled ... 10-3-6-f

That would be the one.

I have also had a 'no call' on this situation. And I had a play like this last night.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

That would be the one.

I have also had a 'no call' on this situation. And I had a play like this last night.

Horse of quite a different color compared to the OP. The differences are obvious to the trained observer. Certainly not an 'automatic' in either circumstance

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by JohnDorian37

At some point he's no longer vertical and then it is certainly a block.

Verticality is earned by virtue of obtaining, then maintaining LGP. It is not a requirement. You're definitely screwing over the defender by making this erroneous call. If B1 has earned a call when vertical and A1 intrudes even further into backward leaning B1's space while initiating contact, A1 is totally and thoroughly at fault. I am calling PC on this play every time.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Verticality is earned by virtue of obtaining, then maintaining LGP.

Not true: your requirement implies that verticality applies only to the defense, since only defenders can have LGP!

Every player in a legal position on the court has verticality, regardless of whether the player (offense or defense) has LGP.

[drofficial]

In the OP I was not intending to describe a player faking a foul. It's a player who knows he is going to get run over and so starts to lean fall back. The problem, for the official, is that this lessens the contact. So the question then becomes was there enough contact to gain an advantage, or did the defender's starting to fall mean that no advantage was gained?

I had this play last night and had a no-call, but then the offensive player basically fell on top of the defender on the floor, so we have a "crash" under the basket and a no-call looks suspect...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by drofficial

In the OP I was not intending to describe a player faking a foul. It's a player who knows he is going to get run over and so starts to lean fall back. The problem, for the official, is that this lessens the contact. So the question then becomes was there enough contact to gain an advantage, or did the defender's starting to fall mean that no advantage was gained?

I agree that makes it tough, but does not make it "illegal." I call the contact, not what the defender did to anticipate contact that they can do legally. If they fall back so far and I have to decide if contact was a foul, then that is a different story. But that is not quite what you said and the reason people wanted clarification.

Originally Posted by drofficial

I had this play last night and had a no-call, but then the offensive player basically fell on top of the defender on the floor, so we have a "crash" under the basket and a no-call looks suspect...

I think we need to stop worrying about what others think. Players fall to the ground all the time and no foul is warranted. Especially when a shooter jumps into a bigger player, I am not calling a foul in the bigger defender if they did nothing wrong or illegal. One of the reasons why courage is a big part of officiating.

Peace

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Not true: your requirement implies that verticality applies only to the defense, since only defenders can have LGP!

Every player in a legal position on the court has verticality, regardless of whether the player (offense or defense) has LGP.

No argument as to your general recitation that "Every player in a legal..." and I understand it implicitly.
My reference to verticality was to absolve B1 of the requirement for remaining vertical and paraphrasing 4-23-3 by showing verticality is reaffirmed by virtue of having LGP but is not a prerequisite for getting a PC call. Sorry you got confused and cited only part of my post.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Sorry you got confused and cited only part of my post.

I wasn't confused at all. I agree with the conclusion of your earlier post, but you made a false statement in support of it. That's the part I quoted.

LGP and verticality seem to confuse a lot of people, and you won't clarify things by linking them.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Not true: your requirement implies that verticality applies only to the defense, since only defenders can have LGP!

Every player in a legal position on the court has verticality, regardless of whether the player (offense or defense) has LGP.

Actually the definition of verticality states that it only applies to the defense and that legal guarding position must be obtained. There are restrictions on offensive players regarding being vertical but that is different from the principle of verticality.

A player in a legal rebounding position cannot violate verticality. Verticality requires legal guarding position, which only means getting in the way of an offensive opponent. But during rebounding action the try is in flight which would mean no team control nor player control so neither team would be on offense (an undefined term). But you can have basket interference or goaltending on the offense which can occur during a try. The legal rebounding position definition should be changed to remove the word verticality and replace it with something about remaining vertical as well as defining offensive and defensive teams. With the current wording it can be confusing.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Actually the definition of verticality states that it only applies to the defense and that legal guarding position must be obtained. There are restrictions on offensive players regarding being vertical but that is different from the principle of verticality.

Actually you're completely wrong as per NFHS rule 4-45-5. Verticality applies to everyone on the court, including rebounding action when there is no offense or defense. And it applies to all legal positions, not just legal guarding positions.

There's nothing the matter with the rules verbiage. There obviously is a comprehension problem attached to the rules verbiage though.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Cobra

A player in a legal rebounding position cannot violate verticality.

So what then does 4-37-2d mean when it says: "To obtain or maintain legal rebounding position, a player may not:...Violate the principle of verticality."?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by drofficial

I've heard numerous partners say this type of thing regarding a block/charge situation: If a player is starting to fall/lean back before contact is made, I call that a block."

How does one defend this statement by rule?

If the defender has established legal guarding position and then leans back, starts to fall before contact (into the torso) is made by the offensive player, shouldn't this still be a charge?

I usually stick with the PC/charging foul. My interp is that starting to fall back is akin to bracing for the impact.

I've never had an egregious case to warrant the unsporting T.