Flop

[Art N]

[QUOTE=Scrapper1;826506]We've had this exact conversation pretty recently, and I will repeat my minority opinion.


hmmm, maybe that should have been an eye opener for you!

[M&M Guy]

While I'm all for "majority rules", (and especially for anything that helps make rocky grumpy ), I understand where Scrapper is coming from. I believe the section of the rule he is basing his opinion is 4-23-4(b): "If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor." It doesn't say legal guarding position, only legal position. In other words, it appears it doesn't matter if the defender had legal guarding position established or not, or is maintaining it or not, only that the defender be in the landing spot before the offensive player leaves the ground.

In practice, this would have to be real obvious for me to call this. Was it absolutely obvious B1 ended up in the landing spot after A1 left the ground? Also, was the contact definitely before A1 landed (even with one foot)? Most of the similar plays I've seen involve the shooter landing, then tripping over the defender on the ground. In this case, 4-23-4(b) no longer applies, and we're left with "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent".

The one thing I know I'm against is the feeling that it should always be a block on B1 simply to "punish" the player for falling backwards without contact and not actually taking the charge, even if it was an attempt to draw the call. If it was truly that, we already have a penalty available to us - the T. If it's not T-worthy, then we're left with the other rules already in place.

What kind of cookies are we serving?

[Welpe]

Good breakdown M&M, I can get onboard with that more or less.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

What kind of cookies are we serving?

Since 'tis the season, I was thinking thin mint.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

While I'm all for "majority rules", (and especially for anything that helps make rocky grumpy ), I understand where Scrapper is coming from. I believe the section of the rule he is basing his opinion is 4-23-4(b): "If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor." It doesn't say legal guarding position, only legal position. In other words, it appears it doesn't matter if the defender had legal guarding position established or not, or is maintaining it or not, only that the defender be in the landing spot before the offensive player leaves the ground.

I think you're reading way too much into this wording.

If the defender hasn't done anything illegal, and hasn't done anything to lose LGP, then I don't see how a block can be called.

The only thing we're talking about him doing illegal is potentially faking a foul. If it's that obvious, warn or call the T. If it's not obvious, then I'd say it's a PC or nothing.

If your local leadership wants a block as the warning for a flop, then do that, but let's not pretend there's rule backing. This is sort of like making the wrong OOB call to save a foul; do it if you must, but call it what it is.

[Adam]

What happens, if instead of falling, B1 simply steps backwards into A1's landing spot? A1 would not have landed on B1 otherwise (let's assume he was going to leap over the defender). How is this different than falling into it?

[Art N]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

What happens, if instead of falling, B1 simply steps backwards into A1's landing spot? A1 would not have landed on B1 otherwise (let's assume he was going to leap over the defender). How is this different than falling into it?

Snags, You beat me to it.
I got interrupted while typing. Dang day job!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think you're reading way too much into this wording.

If the defender hasn't done anything illegal, and hasn't done anything to lose LGP, then I don't see how a block can be called.

The only thing we're talking about him doing illegal is potentially faking a foul. If it's that obvious, warn or call the T. If it's not obvious, then I'd say it's a PC or nothing.

If your local leadership wants a block as the warning for a flop, then do that, but let's not pretend there's rule backing. This is sort of like making the wrong OOB call to save a foul; do it if you must, but call it what it is.

Ok, maybe we're not that far apart.

First, I was backing Scrapper's opinion with the specific rule. You ask what did B1 do wrong? 4-23-4(b) is pretty specific, and it does not differentiate between a player having LGP or not. If B1 did not get to A1's landing spot before A1 leaves the floor, it's a block on B1. You're the one that seems to be reading more into the rule - you seem to be advocating that the wording doesn't apply if B1 established LGP first, and the rule doesn't state that.

My point was while I agree with Scrapper on that point, it would have to be fairly obvious that B1 got the landing spot after A1 leaves the floor, and before A1 lands. B1 standing or laying on the floor doesn't matter. I think we agree on that. I think we also agree that if B1 slides to the landing spot before A1 leaves the floor, it cannot be a block. Or when A1 lands, then trips or falls over B1 on the floor, it cannot be a block on B1, because they got to that spot first.

All I was disagreeing with was the opinion that it will be a block on B1 because there was contact after falling backwards and attempting to fake being fouled. If B1 has and maintains LGP throughout the play, B1 did nothing wrong, except if B1 gets to airborne A1's landing spot after A1 leaves the ground and before they land.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, maybe we're not that far apart.

First, I was backing Scrapper's opinion with the specific rule. You ask what did B1 do wrong? 4-23-4(b) is pretty specific, and it does not differentiate between a player having LGP or not. If B1 did not get to A1's landing spot before A1 leaves the floor, it's a block on B1. You're the one that seems to be reading more into the rule - you seem to be advocating that the wording doesn't apply if B1 established LGP first, and the rule doesn't state that.

One rule obviously doesn't apply here. We have to decide which.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

One rule obviously doesn't apply here. We have to decide which.

The points regarding maintaining LGP are in 4-23-3, however, the only mention of an airborne player with the ball is in a different section, 4-23-4. This tells me an airborne player is to be ruled differently than simply maintaing LGP.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

The points regarding maintaining LGP are in 4-23-3, however, the only mention of an airborne player with the ball is in a different section, 4-23-4. This tells me an airborne player is to be ruled differently than simply maintaing LGP.

I agree with you and with Scrappy-Doo. Once airborne, the defender can't move himself into a new spot hoping to get landed on...

[Art N]

[QUOTE=M&M Guy;826587]While I'm all for "majority rules", (and especially for anything that helps make rocky grumpy ), I understand where Scrapper is coming from. I believe the section of the rule he is basing his opinion is 4-23-4(b): "If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor." It doesn't say legal guarding position, only legal position. In other words, it appears it doesn't matter if the defender had legal guarding position established or not, or is maintaining it or not, only that the defender be in the landing spot before the offensive player leaves the ground.

Nice job M&M bringing this into the discussion. If B1 was standing still near, under (NFHS)... the hoop and is NOT facing A1 and A1 goes airborne and crashes into B1 when landing, then I hope we call a PC foul. (I've spoken with some that think B1 needs to be facing A1, i.e. needs to LGP!).

Now to help clear this up to those NON-BELIEVERS , let's make a change to the OP. Let's say B1 has LGP AND she doesn't flop and fall on the floor but backs up (to avoid collision...) to the SAME spot where you pictured her laying on the floor. Now A1 lands on/into B1. What would you call?
PC foul I hope. Then why in the wide, wide world of sports wouldn't you call the same thing when she is on the floor and gets croaked? Because you think she's trying to get an Academy Award? I say "Nay-Nay, that's not a requirement."

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Art N

Let's say B1 has LGP AND she doesn't flop and fall on the floor but backs up (to avoid collision...) to the SAME spot where you pictured her laying on the floor. Now A1 lands on/into B1. What would you call?

Block. Once a player is airborne, if the defensive player moves to a new spot, the defender is responsible for the contact.

"If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Block. Once a player is airborne, if the defensive player moves to a new spot, the defender is responsible for the contact.

"If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor."

Once LGP is established, a player may....
Are you saying that doesn't apply, and that somehow their position becomes illegal even if they have LGP?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Once LGP is established, a player may....
Are you saying that doesn't apply, and that somehow their position becomes illegal even if they have LGP?

I'm saying that in order for it to be a legal position, you have to be in that position before the opponent becomes airborne.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I'm saying that in order for it to be a legal position, you have to be in that position before the opponent becomes airborne.

I want to make sure we're picturing this the same; does your ruling require that A1 leap over the top of B1's initial position. IOW, if B1 hadn't moved, there would have been no contact.