Charge???
 

No real reason for posting this other than to see if I'm the one that's crazy.

This was called a charge. By the official at the other end of the court? No call by the guy right beside it?

Isn't it illegal to flop?

Ha! - YouTube

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IkTAkKf-I10" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And I have a blocking foul on that play...assuming there's enough contact on the play (which is hard to tell from this angle)

And.... I have a no call.

Im leaning to no call as well. Not sure there was even any contact there.

I have a no-call.

Like I originally posted. The call was made by the trail official farthest from the play (not sure what position you guys call that). Is there ever a point where one official steps in (like the guy right beside it) and maybe straightens the other guy out? Or is that something that you never should do?

The play in question the ball came from his position, so how far he was is not relevant. I do not like the call I saw, but not because of the positioning of the officials.

Peace

What do you mean "straighten him out"?

Distance isn't the only factor in determining who or who should not make a call.

i try to tell younger officials, especially in 3 person games, that calls should be made by "open" or "closed" looks and angles. Just because a person is close to a play doesn't mean they have the best way to process the entire play and make an accurate ruling.

Isn't this the same school where we saw the play with A1 punching/shoving the defender in the neck/face area? (girl's game)

I have no call, unless there's more contact than it looks like. It looks like a flop from this angle.

I watched this play six times.

1) This was the L calls all of the way and that who made the call.


2) CHARGE!!!

MTD, Sr.


P.S. You were talking about the charge at the beginning of the video, weren't you, :confused:?

Negative, although they are both named Trinity Christian, these were not the same school. I'm not even sure if they are in the same state.

Yes, there is a time when this can happen, but it's not on this play.

Just Curious
 

Reading the thread responses leads me to asking this question: If you think it's a flop would you consider calling the defender for a Technical Foul?

For a genuine flop, I'd consider it. For what many people call a flop — slight contact inducing a histrionic fall and yell — no.

Genuine flops are exceedingly rare, in my experience.

How do you differentiate between a "genuine flop" and what you describe above? Would a genuine flop be no contact as opposed to slight contact?

This is not a foul. It is marginal contact with the defender flopping to try and draw a charge.

The main issue I have is that the play is a secondary defender at the basket - IN TRANSITION. The trail has no business blowing a whistle on this play. Trust your lead to officiate this play.

Experience. Anticipating and bracing for contact (by leaning backwards to soften the blow) are allowed. Often, though, those actions minimize contact enough to make it incidental.

Faking being fouled is different, and needs to be obvious.

Fair enough.

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?

I haven't called one..........yet.;)

I hate that mantra. My goal is to be able to explain every time someone hits the floor. Shooter tries to splits defenders and trips, I'm not blowing my whistle.

Your state supervisors are idiots.

Rich:

I like your thinking.

MTD, Sr.

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

Read his PS.

I did and I was still lost. I'm slow I guess.

Long Article for Peer Review on the Topic
 

“Faking being Fouled” – When a Technical Really Needs to be Called
Have you ever had a player guilty of “faking being fouled”? Have you ever had a player “flop” with all the acting abilities of a broadway superstar? No illegal contact has taken place, yet a dramatic fall to the floor is theatrically executed? Defensive player sets up for a charge but, when the dribbler pulls up for a jumper instead, he falls backwards, acting as if he was fouled when he really wasn’t? Perhaps slight contact does occur on a play, but the player reacts as if hit in the chest by a cannon, begging for an illegitimate call?
Rule 10-3-6f clearly states that “faking being fouled” merits the issuance of a player technical foul. But is that the first choice in the official’s repertoire? Probably not.
This begs the question, under what circumstances and when should you for sure call a player technical for “faking being fouled”? Are there any other tactics to employ short of whacking him/her with a T? When might you have no choice?
Often the player illegitimately hitting the deck does so but takes himself out of the play for ensuing rebounding action or for participation in a transition the other way. In that case, he’s really penalized him/herself through the resulting inability to benefit his team on the following play. Here’s a situation where you may want to warn the player about his attempt to get a call in a deceiving fashion. That often solves the situation. Then again, the coach will probably also yell at the player to play better defense, which curbs a future similar incident of “faking being fouled.”
Other times, you may have warned a player to “knock it off”, but he/she doesn’t get the message and does it again. Any warning followed by non-compliance renders your warning step ineffective. Don’t give a T in this situation and you broadcast the message that you don’t really mean it when you issue a warning. Whack ‘em.
If a member of your crew has issued a warning on one end, be sure to be consistent and issue a warning at the other end if it occurs. You don’t want to whip out a T immediately on the other end after merely warning on the first occurrence by the other team.
What if you’ve warned both teams and yet a “faking being fouled” incident occurs in spite of that? Issue the player technical. They didn’t heed the warning, and that’s the only way the message will have any teeth.
Yet again, there might be a real issue of safety involved that means you’d serve the game best by calling a T the first time the “faking being fouled” happens. That’s when the player, though not fouled, or merely contacted to an insignificant extent, takes a dive and poses a danger to other players in the immediate area of the ensuing action. This happens. A player lobbies for a charge right in the middle of the lane, and after he goes down, players trip all over him in the rebounding action that follows the shot. That’s a safety issue. His/her actions posed a real threat to the welfare of the other players, even some of his/her own teammates. Then the issuance of a player technical wouldn’t be out of place. You have an expressed responsibility to protect all players from unnecessary risk of injury. Whack him/her. It probably won’t happen again the rest of the game.
Another situation might happen on a three-point attempt. It is very common for the defender to box out the shooter after the shot has been released. Sometimes the box out is really displacement, and the shooter hits the floor either before or after returning to the floor. When that happens, displacement must be called. But what if the shooter strategizes “faking being fouled”? No unreasonable illegal contact has occurred, but, begging for a foul, the player jumps backward, hits the floor, and complains (along with his/her coach) over the feigned contact? Decision time on your part. Effectively, the player has taken him/herself out of the ensuing play. Is that penalty enough? Quite possibly. If it happens over and over again, that’s against the spirit of the rules of the game. That’s deception. That’s not right. Especially if the coach has been made aware of a previous warning given, the player technical you feel is merited will not receive much protest. Some things just have to be.
“Faking being fouled” can be ignored, as when it’s an isolated incident. A warning can be due a single player or perhaps a team. It’s even possible that, with both teams trying the tactic, a warning be given to all players of both teams. But there are times when it can’t be ignored. And when it can’t, the rules give you a tool to use. Rule 10-3-6f.

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

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.

I think they play in question is in the paint.

I have nothing...play on.

Cow patties.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

ftfy. :)

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.

Fair enough, and interesting debate to be sure.

Duff & Snaqs
 

If I am following the point you two are discussing, once the player flops to the floor, that player no longer has LGP (LGP = 2 feet on the floor, facing an opponent).

I agree with Duff, that the player laying on the floor can be charged with a foul.

First of all, 2 feet and facing are not required to maintain LGP; only to establish.

Second of all:
NFHS: Even if he hasn't maintained LGP, he doesn't need it if he's not moving.

If B1 is facing the stands and picking his nose, he also doesn't have LGP. That doesn't mean that if A1 runs into B1, the foul is (automatically) on B1.

Thanks for taking my side, but to nitpick a player must ESTABLISH a LGP with 2 feet on the floor while facing an opponent, but once it's established a player can maintain a LGP with no feet on the floor (jumping vertically) or even facing a different direction (turning his/her shoulders to protect from an impact on a charge).

Here's a hypothetical.

A1 beats B1 off the dribble and drives to the bucket. A secondary defender B2 steps into the path of A1 and stops without facing A1 (he could be perpendicular or in a box out reboudning position). A1 shots the ball and as an air born shooter lands on B2 (who was stationary prior to the beggining of the attempt). Am I correct to rule this a blocking fould because B2 never established a LGP by facing the opponent?

No.

LGP is not required for 4-23-1

Ok, here's another one.

The defender is laying on the floor, the offense rebounds their own shot in a crowd of people, jumps, shoots, and then lands on the prone defender...are you telling me that this is now consideration for a charge?

Coach: How can that be?
Ref: He took it in the chest, coach
Coach: He was laying on the ground!
Ref: He got there first, estbalished LGP.
Coach: LGP huh? Ok guys, everyone lay on the floor near the basket and let them try to shoot lay ups

Come on now

Interesting... and bonus points for the laughs.

This has already been discussed in the thread Snaq's has given you.
If an offensive player crashes into a stationary defender, what has the defensive player done wrong to result in a foul? In NFHS this is the same even if he is on the ground.

LGP is not required for a stationary player to draw a charge. Yes, if a shooter lands on a stationary defender's chest, when he's lying on the floor relatively still, I'm calling a charge. Not that difficult, and if the coach wants to be an arse about it (they always do on offensive fouls), we can shoot free throws because I have no problem writing reports at night.

If the player got to his spot before the shooter became airborne then by rule you cannot call a block. However if the the contact of falling on the player did not impede his rhythm, speed, balance, or quickness of being on the ground I would have a no call or Charge. (Again, NFHS)

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.

Agreed. Playing this in my head, a player that is just on the ground and gets jumped on will get a whistle in his favor from me. Pretty weird play that I have not had yet

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

Balance is greatly affected when landing on someone :D

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Agreed

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.

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.

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.

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.