Charge???

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yeah, players are intuitive enough to get out of the way.

Agreed, but I work a lot of 1A and 2A girls ball, and even at the varsity level it seems there are one or two girls on the floor at all times for various reasons. I encounter contact with a player on the floor serval times a season so it does come up. I'm curious on your view changes is a situation in which...

A1 is an airborn shooter and comes into contact with, and is put at a disadvantage by, B1 who is getting up off the floor after ending up there for God knows what reason. We don't have a legal guarding position, and the player isn't stationary despite remaining in the general space on the floor they occupy. Would you then have a block?

[7IronRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I only disagree with your last part. I'm not going to let a player land on opponent here without a foul call. That's just dangerous. By landing on the defender, he's preventing him from being able to get up. RSBQ are not rule terms, they are only measuring sticks for deciding whether contact has exceeded the boundaries of incidental. If A1 lands on B1's chest (or back), he is (in my view) preventing B1 from participating in normal offensive or defensive movements.

But in the play the defender flopped (according to some) and had taken himself out of the play and is already no longer participating in normal movement.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

But in the play the defender flopped (according to some) and had taken himself out of the play and is already no longer participating in normal movement.

That seems to be the source of the division.

In my view if a B1 flops to try and draw a call and while on the floor causes a disadvantage to A(1-5) then I'm likely to call B1 for a foul as the floor isn't a LGP and it's his own damn fault he's on the floor.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Duffman

Agreed, but I work a lot of 1A and 2A girls ball, and even at the varsity level it seems there are one or two girls on the floor at all times for various reasons. I encounter contact with a player on the floor serval times a season so it does come up. I'm curious on your view changes is a situation in which...

A1 is an airborn shooter and comes into contact with, and is put at a disadvantage by, B1 who is getting up off the floor after ending up there for God knows what reason. We don't have a legal guarding position, and the player isn't stationary despite remaining in the general space on the floor they occupy. Would you then have a block?

Probably. I was about to make an argument that the player has not lost LGP, but I'm not sure what I think about that yet. (what has a player on the floor done to lose LGP?) If a player without LGP is rising into a defender, it's likely a block. But, that said, that's only if the contact wouldn't have happened without the attempt to get up. If A1 is landing on B1 regardless, it's a charge.

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

But in the play the defender flopped (according to some) and had taken himself out of the play and is already no longer participating in normal movement.

If you think the player tried to fake a foul, warn or call the T. Otherwise, he got to the floor legally.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Duffman

That seems to be the source of the division.

In my view if a B1 flops to try and draw a call and while on the floor causes a disadvantage to A(1-5) then I'm likely to call B1 for a foul as the floor isn't a LGP and it's his own damn fault he's on the floor.

My biggest issue here is the continued reference to LGP for a stationary player. LGP isn't required for 4-23-1 "Every player is entitled to a spot on the floor provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My biggest issue here is the continued reference to LGP for a stationary player. LGP isn't required for 4-23-1 "Every player is entitled to a spot on the floor provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."

Yes, I understand that, poor choice of words.

In all this hypothetical stuff of landing on peoples chest etc we've lost what usually happens in cases like this which is...

A1 is driving, B1 establishes LGP and positions himself between A1 and the bucket. B1 anticipating (and not looking forward to) the contact and trying to draw a charge goes to the ground (straight backward) and A1 gets into B1 laying on the ground despite not getting contact, and now A1 goes down in a heap and I've got to come up with something.

In that situation I almost never reward the defense. I understand they don't have to just stand there and take the full brunt of the charge but they also can't get rewarded for bailing and causing a mess.

[7IronRef]

Originally Posted by Duffman

That seems to be the source of the division.

In my view if a B1 flops to try and draw a call and while on the floor causes a disadvantage to A(1-5) then I'm likely to call B1 for a foul as the floor isn't a LGP and it's his own damn fault he's on the floor.

Agreed

[7IronRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My biggest issue here is the continued reference to LGP for a stationary player. LGP isn't required for 4-23-1 "Every player is entitled to a spot on the floor provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."

Ok
Fast break situation near midcourt line. Defender is 2 or 3 steps ahead, lays down and creates a 6'4" speed bump, offense side steps but their foot makes contact with the speed bumps foot and trips falling to the floor, losing possession and breaks their wrist....LGP according to you....CHARGE? Oh yea and technically they can rise within their vertical plane.

I just don't buy your interpretation

Every coach in the world will stop telling their kids to stand in and draw a charge, they'll say hurry up and lay down to draw a charge

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

Ok
Fast break situation near midcourt line. Defender is 2 or 3 steps ahead, lays down and creates a 6'4" speed bump, offense side steps but their foot makes contact with the speed bumps foot and trips falling to the floor, losing possession and breaks their wrist....LGP according to you....CHARGE? Oh yea and technically they can rise within their vertical plane.

I just don't buy your interpretation

Every coach in the world will stop telling their kids to stand in and draw a charge, they'll say hurry up and lay down to draw a charge

Why do you keep using the phrase LGP? It's been pointed out several times that in NFHS every player is entitled to their spot on the floor. If B1 is laying on the floor and A1 comes to B1 and trips over him it's not a foul b/c B1 was entitled to that spot on the floor. LGP has nothing to do with it.

In NCAA it would be a foul on the defender.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

Ok
Fast break situation near midcourt line. Defender is 2 or 3 steps ahead, lays down and creates a 6'4" speed bump, offense side steps but their foot makes contact with the speed bumps foot and trips falling to the floor, losing possession and breaks their wrist....LGP according to you....CHARGE? Oh yea and technically they can rise within their vertical plane.

I just don't buy your interpretation

Every coach in the world will stop telling their kids to stand in and draw a charge, they'll say hurry up and lay down to draw a charge

No, they won't, because it's horrible defense. Don't be ridiculous. That speed bump isn't 6'4" high, it's about 6-8" high. Every player I've seen over the age of 10 can easily avoid that.

That said, I'll say it again, discussing LGP is irrelevant and my main hang up on this. LGP is not required for a stationary player, but it is required for a player rising into an opponent.

1. If I think the player was faking a foul, I'm calling the T here for safety reasons. It's the right call by rule.
2. Some propose calling the block for safety reasons if he fakes being fouled. But at least they don't pretend it's within the rules; it's a game management call. Sort of like giving the ball to the "wrong" team in an OOB play because the "right" team committed a minor foul. Outside the rule, but expected in some locales.
3. If the player isn't faking, he hasn't done anything illegal, and it's a no-call if A1 simply trips over him. I don't have to call a foul just because a player gets injured. Sometimes it's the injured player's fault.

[7IronRef]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why do you keep using the phrase LGP? It's been pointed out several times that in NFHS every player is entitled to their spot on the floor. If B1 is laying on the floor and A1 comes to B1 and trips over him it's not a foul b/c B1 was entitled to that spot on the floor. LGP has nothing to do with it.

In NCAA it would be a foul on the defender.

Ok take LGP out of it. Again, it is not a normal part of the game, but yet the insistence is that contact as a result of a defensive player being prone is the fault of the offense.

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

Ok take LGP out of it. Again, it is not a normal part of the game, but yet the insistence is that contact as a result of a defensive player being prone is the fault of the offense.

Players fall to the floor all the time (especially girls). So, it is part of the game. It sounds to me that most are saying, according to NFHS rules, it is more incidental contact than anything else. All things being equal.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

Ok take LGP out of it. Again, it is not a normal part of the game, but yet the insistence is that contact as a result of a defensive player being prone is the fault of the offense.

That's what the NFHS has ruled. I like the college rule better but I have to adhere to the rules of whichever particular game I am officiating that day.