Flop

[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.

[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???

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

Have you tried the new Dark Chocolate Raspberry M&M's? Yum-o!

My only disagreements in this thread have with those that would call a block on B1 solely because they flopped (like the OP,...remember that?...), or those that would call a PC when B1 moved and contacted A1 while they were still in the air.

But, other than that, I like cookies too.

[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.