Flop

[Raymond]

I will repeat that that I do not believe it is the spirit and intent of the rules for B1, with initial LGP, to fall down of his own volition and contact airborne A1.

And I have NEVER had an observer or supervisor or evaluator or mentor ever tell me or anyone I know that this play is a PC/Charging foul.

HS BV and above, if you call this a foul on A1 your creditibility is going to take a hit.

[Art N]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I know that I have a rule citation for my position, and you have not provided one for yours. :shrug:

Point taken.
I don't have my book at work today, but some others have given quotes on it.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Art N

The plays above are slightly different than our post because it just says B1 moves AND as you pointed out says A1 landed (no time and distance needed). It doesn't say B is backing up, which is LEGAL.

OK, now I honestly believe that you aren't getting it. There has been a rule cited and a casebook play cited that both show that the defender moving after A1 has gone airborne is going to be a foul on the defender.

Silly car examples won't change that.

Where's my cookies, M&M???

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I will repeat that that I do not believe it is the spirit and intent of the rules for B1, with initial LGP, to fall down of his own volition and contact airborne A1.

Wait, A1 is contacting B1 isn't he? I know what you're saying and on this particular scenario if B1 fell so early that he is already on the floor then I agree.

But if B1 is still falling back because he fell early to absorb contact and the result is the contact between the two is simply delayed, as in A1 was going to go through B1 already then I cannot believe the intent of the rule is to bail A1 out of creating this contact. A1 went up knowing (or he should have anyways) that he was going to initiate contact with B1.

Unless it is clear to me that A1 was going to go over B1 with little or maginal contact and B1's falling took away his landing space, I'm going PC.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Art N

The plays above are slightly different than our post because it just says B1 moves AND as you pointed out says A1 landed (no time and distance needed). It doesn't say B is backing up, which is LEGAL.

It doesn't specifically mention it, because it's not relevent to the ruling. If it did matter, wouldn't it be mentioned?

Originally Posted by Art N

Your car is stopped at the light. The car in front of you makes a right turn, so you pull up. While you are pulling up or after you pull up, a car coming behind not noticing you (because it is a teenager texting) rears end you. He would have hit you in either spot. Unless you put it in reverse he would be at fault.

Unfortunately the driving references do not matter in this particular discussion unless we're talking about airborne cars like the General Lee.

Can we stick with the basketball rules - tell me why 4-23-4(b) is worded the way it is, and why it is separate from the LGP provisions?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Unless it is clear to me that A1 was going to go over B1 with little or maginal contact and B1's falling took away his landing space, I'm going PC.

Why???? Why would that possibly be true? You're going to make a call based on what "would have happened" instead of what did happen???

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

The obvious example is B2 standing there, looking at and guarding A2, while having their back to A1. A1, seeing this, simply runs into the back of B2 looking to draw the foul. After all, B2 never met the requirements of establishing initial LGP, since B2 was never facing A1. Would you call the foul on B2? Of course not; B2 never had LGP, by rule, but still had a legal position on the court, and still can draw a PC foul.

Correct. And if B1 takes a step away from A1, and in the process, for whatever reason, falls down, after which A1 lands on him, or trips over him, it is still not a foul on B1.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Why???? Why would that possibly be true? You're going to make a call based on what "would have happened" instead of what did happen???

Relax Scrappy. Because to me this defines whether an actual change of position took place or not. How can you say that a change of position actually happened and that B1 took away A1's landing space if A1 was already going to create enough contact with B1 to result in a PC foul? If B1 is already in A1's path and begins falling backward, is this really the intent of the rule regarding an airborne player? I can't believe that it is.

The intent of the rule with the airborne player is to give him a chance to go up and land safely. Why should he have that acommodation if he's going up in a situation that he knows he is NOT going to land safely?

[Art N]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

It doesn't specifically mention it, because it's not relevent to the ruling. If it did matter, wouldn't it be mentioned?


Unfortunately the driving references do not matter in this particular discussion unless we're talking about airborne cars like the General Lee.

Can we stick with the basketball rules - tell me why 4-23-4(b) is worded the way it is, and why it is separate from the LGP provisions?

Sorry the car reference...I'm just going wee bit batty now!

I don't have my book with me, but it looks like you do. Can you look at the provision for LGP, legal position, and movement? That would be where I would start. Is the book on line anywhere that I can access it?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I will repeat that that I do not believe it is the spirit and intent of the rules for B1, with initial LGP, to fall down of his own volition and contact airborne A1.
...

Originally Posted by Welpe

Wait, A1 is contacting B1 isn't he? I know what you're saying and on this particular scenario if B1 fell so early that he is already on the floor then I agree.

But if B1 is still falling back because he fell early to absorb contact and the result is the contact between the two is simply delayed, as in A1 was going to go through B1 already then I cannot believe the intent of the rule is to bail A1 out of creating this contact. A1 went up knowing (or he should have anyways) that he was going to initiate contact with B1.

Unless it is clear to me that A1 was going to go over B1 with little or maginal contact and B1's falling took away his landing space, I'm going PC.

Let's stick to the play. We're talking about a defender who has already fallen down when the contact occurred. I don't think anybody on either side of the debate is talking about a defender who bails out but still gets contacted while backing or falling away.

I really would love for someone to go to a camp and call a foul on A1 in this scenario.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Art N

Sorry the car reference...I'm just going wee bit batty now!

I don't have my book with me, but it looks like you do. Can you look at the provision for LGP, legal position, and movement? That would be where I would start. Is the book on line anywhere that I can access it?

Again, I've mentioned it several times here - the provisions of establishing initial LGP are in 4-23-2, and the provisions of maintaining LGP are in 4-23-3. The point Scrappy and I have been making is the provision involving an airborne player are specifically mentioned in the next section, 4-23-4: "Guarding an opponent with the ball:...(b) "If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor."

The exact same wording is mentioned in 4-23-5, Guarding a moving opponent without the ball... (d) "If the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor."

In both cases, it does not say legal guarding position. Both sections specifically mention airborne players (with and without the ball), and are separate from the sections involving LGP. This tells me airborne players are handled differently than under "normal" LGP rules.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't think anybody on either side of the debate is talking about a defender who bails out but still gets contacted while backing or falling away.

That is not the impression I have but if so, I will happily concede. I was basing my analysis on the OP which seemed vague to me as how far B1 had fallen by the time she was contacted.

M&M you have any cookies left?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Welpe

But if B1 is still falling back because he fell early to absorb contact and the result is the contact between the two is simply delayed, as in A1 was going to go through B1 already then I cannot believe the intent of the rule is to bail A1 out of creating this contact. A1 went up knowing (or he should have anyways) that he was going to initiate contact with B1.

Unless it is clear to me that A1 was going to go over B1 with little or maginal contact and B1's falling took away his landing space, I'm going PC.

If B1 is still falling back, then he hasn't moved to a new spot on the floor while A1 is airborne - which is the focal point of all this discussion, imho.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Welpe

That is not the impression I have but if so, I will happily concede. I was basing my analysis on the OP which seemed vague to me as how far B1 had fallen by the time she was contacted.

M&M you have any cookies left?

I'm going off this response which is what got this debate started:

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Agreed. You can't call a block when there's no contact. The only way I call a block related to a flop is if B1 does it while A1 is airborne and then A1 lands on B1. When coaches have asked me why I tell them B1 created a danger for A1 by not giving him/her a place to land.

I don't want any cookies, I wan't M&M's.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm going off this response which is what got this debate started:

I see, that still isn't clear to me that B1 is already on the floor but maybe it is implied by "flops". That's neither here nor there, I'm glad in toto we agree and the disagreement was a misunderstanding. Gotta run now, I've got to queue up my next Phil Collins video.