|
Player starting to fall in anticipation of charge
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
4-23-3-e
Art 3: After the initial legal guarding position is obtained: e. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact. JohnDorian: How in the world would falling away from the A player violate the principle of verticality? |
Turn or Duck...where does it say falling is still legal?
|
Quote:
The guard may move laterrally or obliquely (to include backwards) to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But if you want something else to hang your hat on, then consider that a defender, planted in the ball handler's path has established LGP. And one provision of LGP is: "The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs." Falling backward, as Jeff pointed out earlier, is not movement "toward the opponent". |
Quote:
I have also had a 'no call' on this situation. And I had a play like this last night. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Never truer words spoken |
Quote:
Every player in a legal position on the court has verticality, regardless of whether the player (offense or defense) has LGP. |
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... |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Peace |
Agree with Rut. You have to decide whether the contact caused the player to fall, or if the defender's own actions caused him to lose his balance. Generally, if the shooter lands on top of the defender, you can go ahead and call the PC. If the shooter lands just at the defender, and contact is slight, you have a decision to make.
|
Quote:
LGP and verticality seem to confuse a lot of people, and you won't clarify things by linking them. |
Quote:
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. |
From an old POE that still holds true...
Flopping: The defensive player or screener acting as though he or she has been charged by an opponent, when in fact he or she has not been, definitely has an impact on the game. It is detrimental to the best interests of basketball. The "actor" wants to create the false impression that he or she has been fouled in the charging/guarding situation, or while he or she is screening when in either case there is no contact or incidental contact. The "actor" falls to the court as though he or she was knocked down by the force of contact by the opponent. These actions are designed to have a foul charged to the opponent- a foul not deserved. The "flop" also incites spectators. The rules are in place to deal with such activity and must be enforced. A technical foul is charged to the "actor" in all cases. Coaches can have a positive impact by appropriately dealing with players who fake being fouled. It is not part of the game. Officials must penalize the act. Try not to giggle at the notion of a coach giving one of his players crap for faking a foul. Far more coaches teach it than tsk-tsk it. To sum up, it's always a judgment call. You first have to judge whether there was appreciable contact or not. No contact or minimal contact = no call or a "T". If there is appreciable contact, you then have to decide whether the contact was incidental or illegal. Incidental contact is a no-call. Illegal contact on which player is determined by the appropriate block/charge rule. |
Quote:
There's nothing the matter with the rules verbiage. There obviously is a comprehension problem attached to the rules verbiage though. |
Quote:
I've never had an egregious case to warrant the unsporting T. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
However Cobra was making a big point of stating that verticality can only apply to a defender with LGP. The rule book clearly disagrees, and specifically calls out that rebounders must also respect the principle of verticality in order to be legal. I probably edited the context out of what little bit of his post I quoted. |
Quote:
Verticality applies to a legal position. Following are the basic components of the principle of verticality: ART. 1 . . . Legal guarding position must be obtained initially and movement thereafter must be legal. The definition of guarding is "Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent." So in order in order to guard someone you must be on defense. The principle of verticality says legal guarding position must be obtained. The offense can't obtain legal guarding position so the prinicple of verticality only applies to the defense. 4-45-5 deals with the defender maintaining verticality and being fouled. It doesn't say anything about verticality applying to the offense. Quote:
And you might not want to argue with me about definitions anymore. Last week you didn't know the difference between a common foul and a personal foul and then now you don't know the definition of verticality nor the guarding definition. Quote:
Offense and defensive teams need to be defined. The legal rebounding position needs to be changed to remove "verticality" and replace it with something about the vertical plane. The verticality prinicple could be changed instead but it would probably be easier to change the legal rebounding position rule. |
Quote:
And by failing to include the next sentence of my post you eliminated any sense of context. I was simply trying to show that verticality was a result of gaining LGP and that not keeping a vertical position did not preclude a PC call in this sitch. |
Quote:
PS..it might also be a good idea to get somebody to read POE #5 in this year's rulebook to you, specifically 5E& 5G. |
Do these two case book plays shed any light?
10.6.1 SITUATION A: B1 takes a certain spot on the court before A1 jumps in the air to catch a pass: (a) A1 lands on B1; or (b) B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 lands on one foot and then charges into B1. RULING: In (a) and (b), the foul is on A1. (4-23-5d) 10.6.1 SITUATION C: B1 is standing behind the plane of the backboard before A1 jumps for a lay-up shot. The forward momentum causes airborne shooter A1 to charge into B1. RULING: B1 is entitled to the position obtained legally before A1 left the floor. If the ball goes through the basket before or after the contact occurs, the player-control foul cancels the goal. However, if B1 moves into the path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1. (4-19-1, 4-19-6; 6-7-4; 10 Penalty 2, 5a) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
or cause contact within the defender’s vertical plane; this is a foul." Notice is says the contact was "within the defender's vertical plane". It does not say that the contact was "outside of the offender's vertical plane" because verticality does not apply to him. 5F (4-45-6) says "The defender may not “belly up” or use the lower part of the body or arms to cause contact outside his or her vertical plane; this is a foul." So it is the exact same thing as 5E except in reverse. Notice again that it makes no reference to the vertical plane of the offensive player. If verticality applies to the offense then why does 4-45-1 say that LGP must be obtained first and 4-45-2, 3, and 4 all start with "the defender"? I know it is a little confusing but verticality only applies to the defense. If the offense fouls it is for illegal contact within the vertical plane of the defender. If the defense fouls it is for illegal contact outside the vertical plane of the defender. The offensive player's vertical plane means nothing, only the defender's plane matter under the verticality principle. |
Quote:
If you honestly think that the principle of verticality doesn't apply on rebounding or to a shooter, you really, really need to talk to a good rules interpreter. Note that I said a good rules interpreter. Don't talk to bainsey's. |
Had this one happen on Monday. Young man pretty much braced himself for impact by starting to lean back, partner calls the charge. Coach screams out " That has not been called all year", my response " Not sure what to tell you coach, but today is a new day". But at halftime we went over it and he was ok with the call.
|
True
Quote:
|
Quote:
Disagree. The main reason is to brace for contact. Besides, trying to draw a foul call is not an unsporting T, unless you think it's an attempt to "fake being fouled." They're not the same thing, necessarily. Allowing yourself to fall after contact is different, IMO, than faking being fouled. |
To or Through
Quote:
I don't agree the main reason is to brace for contact. I believe the main reason is to fake a foul, hence the unsporting T. |
Quote:
Better re-think that one because you have absolutely no rules justification to ever call a block. A no-call or a "T" for faking a foul, yes. That's a judgment call. But never a block. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Had a JV kid last year try it once. I no-called the play, then warned him not to do it again on the way down the court. He didn't. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:55pm. |