Charge???

[wfd21]

Minimal contact, looks more like a dive to me. Definate "NO CALL" IMHO

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Tebo2526

I have no idea what you are talking about @ the beginning as well as how you could say this was a charge?

Maybe you were joking, no idea

Tebo:

There was a charge at the very beginning of the video. I only watched the charge at the beginning of the video and never watched the complete video until later. I thought the thread was about the first charge, not the block/charge play at the end of the video. And yes the charge at the beginning of the video was a charge.

You are much to young to getting senile like me.

MTD, Sr.

[tjones1]

I think they play in question is in the paint.

I have nothing...play on.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by ref2coach

Agreed in full.

Now, In our state a common mantra of the State supervisors is "there has to be a whistle EVERY time bodies hit the floor". What is the right thing to do when the B1 anticipates contact, A1 pulls up and shoots staying within his verticality but B1 being barely touched, falls to the floor? Compounded by A1 missing the shot and you now have rebounding action with a player on the floor endangering himself and others?

Cow patties.

What you should know is, when any player hit the floor, how they got there.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by ref2coach

Agreed in full.

Now, In our state a common mantra of the State supervisors is "there has to be a whistle EVERY time bodies hit the floor". What is the right thing to do when the B1 anticipates contact, A1 pulls up and shoots staying within his verticality but B1 being barely touched, falls to the floor? Compounded by A1 missing the shot and you now have rebounding action with a player on the floor endangering himself and others?

It's been my experience the player that flops usually penalizes himself by being unable to compete for a rebound or remain useful in the play. There have been occasions in which the player on the floor gets tangled up in the feet of an opposing player either with or without the ball and puts the opposing player at a clear disadvantage. In those cases I'll whistle the player on the ground for a common foul, with my rational being they can't have a legal guarding or rebounding position while on the floor, and it's their own damn fault for being there.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Duffman

It's been my experience the player that flops usually penalizes himself by being unable to compete for a rebound or remain useful in the play. There have been occasions in which the player on the floor gets tangled up in the feet of an opposing player either with or without the ball and puts the opposing player at a clear disadvantage. In those cases I'll whistle the player on the ground for a common foul, with my rational being they can't have a legal guarding or rebounding position while on the floor, and it's their own damn fault for being there.

If he got there legally, by anticipating/bracing for contact and falling in the process, and he's not moving (and thus does not require LGP) when the feet get tangled; what has he done wrong to warrant a foul?

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If he got there legally, by anticipating/bracing for contact and falling in the process, and he's not moving (and thus does not require LGP) when the feet get tangled; what has he done wrong to warrant a foul?

Nothing, and that's a completely different situation than what we are talking about. We are talking about players that flop trying to draw a whistle.

If a player anticipates and braces for impact and goes to the floor legitimately as a result of the contact we have a charge, no?

From the angle we had on that video the defensive player clearly went down on his own. Had he gotten tangled up with the offensive player while still in possession of the ball, a cutting player after a pass, or a rebounder after a try I would not have hesitated in calling a personal foul on him while on the ground.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Duffman

Nothing, and that's a completely different situation than what we are talking about. We are talking about players that flop trying to draw a whistle.

If a player anticipates and braces for impact and goes to the floor legitimately as a result of the contact we have a charge, no?

From the angle we had on that video the defensive player clearly went down on his own. Had he gotten tangled up with the offensive player while still in possession of the ball, a cutting player after a pass, or a rebounder after a try I would not have hesitated in calling a personal foul on him while on the ground.

Players often start falling backwards to brace for contact, and in the process cause their own fall. Just because a player was falling without contact does not mean he is faking being fouled. That's my point.

The play I normally see:

A1 approaches B1 in transition. B1 has established LGP, and leans backwards as he expects contact. A1 pulls up, lightly brushing B1's shoulder. B1 hits the floor because he lost his own balance rather than because of A1's contact. B1 would have drawn the charge had he stayed in position, but his preemptive action prevents illegal contact.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Players often start falling backwards to brace for contact, and in the process cause their own fall. Just because a player was falling without contact does not mean he is faking being fouled. That's my point.

The play I normally see:

A1 approaches B1 in transition. B1 has established LGP, and leans backwards as he expects contact. A1 pulls up, lightly brushing B1's shoulder. B1 hits the floor because he lost his own balance rather than because of A1's contact. B1 would have drawn the charge had he stayed in position, but his preemptive action prevents illegal contact.

I guess in that situation it would be play on.

That said lets say player A's shot is short his rebound comes right back to him with player B still directly between him and the bucket. A1 tries to drive to the basket (or makes another attempt at goal) around B1 and contact ensues that puts A1 at a disadvantage. At that point I would argue you have a foul on B1 as both team and player control ends at the try and the player on the floor did not re-establish a LGP.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Duffman

I guess in that situation it would be play on.

That said lets say player A's shot is short his rebound comes right back to him with player B still directly between him and the bucket. A1 tries to drive to the basket (or makes another attempt at goal) around B1 and contact ensues that puts A1 at a disadvantage. At that point I would argue you have a foul on B1 as both team and player control ends at the try and the player on the floor did not re-establish a LGP.

If B1 isn't moving, he doesn't need LGP.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If B1 isn't moving, he doesn't need LGP.

Define moving.... we talking about planking here?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Duffman

Define moving.... we talking about planking here?

Changing positions in relation to the floor. Rolling, trying to get up, stretching out the arms or legs, etc.

What Do You Have

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Changing positions in relation to the floor. Rolling, trying to get up, stretching out the arms or legs, etc.

What Do You Have

Intereresting the difference between NCAA and NHSF here, thanks for pointing that out.

In the situation on the video I'd have a foul under both NCAA (which I do tiny bit of JV stuff) and HS as I don't think the defender was motionless.

In the rare instance in which a player on the floor was perfectly motionless I'd agree with you that there is no foul, but I'll ask again are we talking about planking here (lying on the floor rigidly with your arms and hands straight at your sides)? I find it hard to imagine a situation in which there was truly no movement by a player lying on the floor. If said player is lying on his/her back on the floor and raises his/her arms verticly to protect him/herself isn't that considered movement? How is that different than a player standing verticly that extends his/her amrs horizontally and creates contact as a player drives by him/her.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by snaqwells

for nfhs, if b1 isn't moving, he doesn't need lgp.

ftfy.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Duffman

Intereresting the difference between NCAA and NHSF here, thanks for pointing that out.

In the situation on the video I'd have a foul under both NCAA (which I do tiny bit of JV stuff) and HS as I don't think the defender was motionless.

In the rare instance in which a player on the floor was perfectly motionless I'd agree with you that there is no foul, but I'll ask again are we talking about planking here (lying on the floor rigidly with your arms and hands straight at your sides)? I find it hard to imagine a situation in which there was truly no movement by a player lying on the floor. If said player is lying on his/her back on the floor and raises his/her arms verticly to protect him/herself isn't that considered movement? How is that different than a player standing verticly that extends his/her amrs horizontally and creates contact as a player drives by him/her.

I agree with your take on the video. B1 undercuts A1. That said, I'm not going to ask a player to stop breathing to avoid a foul. Essentially, he gets the same movements we'd allow a player on the court without LGP. Entitled to his spot on the playing court, as long as he doesn't do anything to change or extend that spot, he's legal.