Flop

[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?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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?

B3 has LGP. A1 comes straight to him. B3 flops straight back. A1 may not have a place to land, but he wouldn't have had one without the flop, either.
No way is this a foul on B3.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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?

Your options are mutually exclusive.

If B3 had LGP, that means they are already in A1's path and falling back can't/doesn't change that.

If B3 changes position to get in airborne A1's path, B3 didn't have LGP.

The way I view it is that falling back is not changing position or moving into the path of the shooter if they are already in the path when A1 went airborne. Falling back only reduces the amount of impact relative to what would have occurred had B3 stood their ground. That can't be a foul on the defender to reduce the impact that was going to otherwise occur. If B3 falls away and still gets hit, it is even more likely that it is a PC foul, IMHO....B3 was just softening the blow.

If B3 makes it to the floor before contact, but were in the path before A1 was airborne, I see that essentially as ducking the contact (a permitted act). If they had stood their ground, A1 would have only hit them harder. If A1 lands on them, I still don't see how B3 did anything to cause the contact since they were legally in their path to start with and only moved away from the opponent.

If, however, B3 wasn't squared up and in the path and A1 was going to fly by B3 but the fall puts B3 into A1's path (or landing spot), then B3 never had LGP to start with and it will be a block.


One common misconception, A1 isn't entitled to a landing "spot", only a path until they land. If B gets in that path before A jumps and is not moving forward at the time of contact, that is all that B is required to do.