Flop

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

JV girls game. Midway in 1st quarter A1 drives to the basket. B1 falls backwards. (I am thinking she is a soccer player). A hair strand might have come in contact between the two players. I bend the rules and call a blocking foul. Coach B complains "there wasn't any contact" I ask him what he saw. He replies "She flopped". I politely informed him that flopping is a Techinal foul. Also asked him if he wants me to call a T on his team the next time it occurs. He mumbles while walking away. "I'm not talking to you."
No more problems with flopping in the game.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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.

Where was B1 before the flop? If the flop involves the defender moving into the path/landing area, yes this is a block. But when I think of a flop, I think of a defender who had LGP, and had there been contact it would have been a PC foul. In your case, if the defender has LGP, then bails out early, then is landed on by A1, this is not a block, either.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Where was B1 before the flop? If the flop involves the defender moving into the path/landing area, yes this is a block. But when I think of a flop, I think of a defender who had LGP, and had there been contact it would have been a PC foul. In your case, if the defender has LGP, then bails out early, then is landed on by A1, this is not a block, either.

My initial comment was based on B1 establishing LGP.

4-23-3e (NFHS) says the defender can turn or duck to avoid the contact and maintain LGP. Falling backwards onto the court prior to contact isn't either of those.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

My initial comment was based on B1 establishing LGP.

4-23-3e (NFHS) says the defender can turn or duck to avoid the contact and maintain LGP. Falling backwards onto the court prior to contact isn't either of those.

Actually, it kinda is. Defender falls straight back and the shooter lands on him anyway? No way is this a block. Possibly PC, or more likely a no call. Defender wants to take himself out of the play, he is not put at a disadvantage.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Actually, it kinda is. Defender falls straight back and the shooter lands on him anyway? No way is this a block. Possibly PC, or more likely a no call. Defender wants to take himself out of the play, he is not put at a disadvantage.

Ok, whoa...hold on a minute. Maybe I am picturing this differently than you are...so A1 is driving and jumps to shoot. B3 throws him/herself backward and is laying on the ground and A1 lands on him/her and wipes out. You don't have a foul on B3 for moving into that position after A1 has gone airborne?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Ok, whoa...hold on a minute. Maybe I am picturing this differently than you are...so A1 is driving and jumps to shoot. B3 throws him/herself backward and is laying on the ground and A1 lands on him/her and wipes out. You don't have a foul on B3 for moving into that position after A1 has gone airborne?

Rocky, that's essentially what I'm calling.

If B1 stays still/turns/ducks within his/her own area of verticality after gaining LGP it's a PC foul. That's easy.
If B1 falls backwards and A1 never makes contact with him/her, that's nothing.
But - to me - if A1 lands on B1 after B1 fell backwards of his/her on choice when A1 was an airborne shooter, A1 was put at a disadvantage since he/she has nowhere to land.

[Art N]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Ok, whoa...hold on a minute. Maybe I am picturing this differently than you are...so A1 is driving and jumps to shoot. B3 throws him/herself backward and is laying on the ground and A1 lands on him/her and wipes out. You don't have a foul on B3 for moving into that position after A1 has gone airborne?

Rocky,
Are you saying that B3 HAD LGP before A1 went airborne, then fell backwards (without being contacted, on her own, perhaps avoiding potential contact,...)then, while she is laying on the floor, NOW A1 lands on her?

If so, then you are saying you would call a foul on B3? If she hadn't fell, A1 still would have landed on her or crashed into her! Maybe I am seeing this different. I do know that some refs will bail out A1 because B3 is falling before contact, or she is under the hoop...which confuses me with NFHS. I know we discussed a player who fell on the floor in another post and it was determined they had the right to that spot, if I remember correctly.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Art N

Rocky,
Are you saying that B3 HAD LGP before A1 went airborne, then fell backwards (without being contacted, on her own, perhaps avoiding potential contact,...)then, while she is laying on the floor, NOW A1 lands on her?

If so, then you are saying you would call a foul on B3? If she hadn't fell, A1 still would have landed on her or crashed into her! Maybe I am seeing this different. I do know that some refs will bail out A1 because B3 is falling before contact, or she is under the hoop...which confuses me with NFHS. I know we discussed a player who fell on the floor in another post and it was determined they had the right to that spot, if I remember correctly.

I don't know that I was picturing B3 as having LGP first. But let's say h/she does. Once A1 goes airborne, is B3 allowed to change that position and take away A1's landing?