Flop
 

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.

Don't bend the rules. Blocking call, if there was no contact, was not the right call, IMO. I think I would have told the girl to knock it off. I have yet to see an official call a T for a flop.

This particular scenario is a pet peeve of mine by my fellow officials.

Please don't call this a block. It's not a block. A true flop is illegal, sure. Warn the player to discontinue doing it. Warn again and then T if you must.

A player falling away early to brace for contact is not a flop and it is definitely not a block. It will potentially bail the offensive player out of a PC call but it's not going to be a foul against the defender. The offensive player was not disadvantaged by the defender giving up and not playing defense.

Please don't call this a block. Especially if you're going to reach into my area to do it.

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.

Where does it say to warn? ;)

Peace

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.

Rule 11. :)

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.

I'd've passed on any foul. And I'd remind the coach about flopping.

I agree. I especially hate when this call is made directly in front of me.

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?

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.

I thought so. :D

Peace

I am not sure of what we are talking about now...
 

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?

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.

Thats the one the added when they took the others out this year, right?

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.

Thanks. That is what I was thinking too.

This is how I was picturing it...

And I like your explanation of the player not losing LGP status.

I'm convinced.

Geeze, you're getting easier to convince in your old age. ;)

Once a player establishes LgP they don't have to maintain it to take a charge. However a player cannot have LGP while on the floor. If a player falls to the floor with no contact and the airborne shooter lands on him I'm calling a block all day long.

NFHS rules specifically state that every player is entitled to a space on the floor provided they get there legally. However unlikely, if a defender gets to a spot on while on the floor, first and legally, then by rule if a player is to land on him, it wouldn't be a block. This is different than the NCAA rule if I recall correctly.

Please read the rules. This demonstrates either a lack of understanding of LGP or simply a miscommunication.

Groupthink works!

We've had this exact conversation pretty recently, and I will repeat my minority opinion. Regardless of whether B1 has LGP before A1 becomes airborne, once A1 becomes airborne, if B1 moves to a new position, B1 is responsible for any contact.

There is no way I'm allowing any player to move into an airborne player's landing spot AFTER that player becomes airborne.

Was about to post the same opinion. A1 goes airborne and B1 falls without contact and B1's new position on the floor causes disadvantageous contact to A1 then I'm going with a block.

So if B1 simply delays the moment that A1 initiates contact because he fell away, a PC foul is changed to a block? In my opinion, if A1 was going to go through B1 anyways, this is still a PC foul.

Maybe we're picturing this differently. If B1 fell away early enough that he is already on the floor, then I don't see how he would have LGP and I think a block is appropriate. If B1 is still falling and the contact is delayed only a second or two, I think we still have a PC foul.

But A1 didn't go through B1. B1 changed his position while A1 was airborne and put A1 at a disadvantage.

B1 and A1 are running in the same direction and same path. B1 is ahead of and moving away from A1. A1 is running/dribbling faster. Now A1 jumps for a lay-up, shoots and proceeds to land on B1. :eek:
I saw this play on Monday. Did B1 do anything wrong?

Maybe, if A1 would have jumped OVER B1, but I don't see too many players capable of this.

We're picturing the play differently then.

OK, now I am back to where I was at before...you have unconvinced me.

Stupid groupthink.

Stupid old age.

Stupid M&M Guy.

Remember, by rule, falling away to absorb contact does not remove LGP from a player that had initially established it.

Rocky come back to the dark side...we have cookies. And groupthink on tap.

What exactly, by rule, has the defender done to lose LGP? Move backwards?

+1

Duff, I would respectfully submit that you would be incorrect all day long making that call! ;)

What? How did you come up with this conclusion? B1 avoids initial contact and now somehow is to blame for A1 landing on her?????? How come you are not placing any responsibility on A1 for going airborne when she wouldn't have had any place to land.

So if you swing at me and I duck and you hit the wall behind me, it would be my fault right, because I didn't stay in front of the potential violent contact? :D
I know it is NOT the same thing, but you get the gist of it.

B1 has not moved into a new space under airborne A1. She was already THERE in A1's path to the hoop! B1 falling down (i.e she falls straight back) doesn't make her go under A1. Look at it more like A1 is OVER her whether she stands up or falls! Bottom line for me: Would A1 have crashed into B1 if she was standing up? If so, how in the world are you going to fault a player for getting out of the way of train wreck?

[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! :D

I think what we are getting at is the spirit and intent of LGP as it relates to airborne shooters.

I personally don't think the powers-that-be intended for us to call PC/Charging when a defender purposely falls down without contact and the airborne shooter lands on them. And I don't think that what coaches want either.

Then they should change the rule, or issue a power point.

Only after taking a poll and posting a questionaire.

Or maybe issue a contradictory casebook play or POE...

HTBT. One of them was moving into, over or under the other one if there was contact. They certainly weren't parallel to each other. One way I see the play is B1 didn't have LGP and he was the one making contact or going under airborne A1's "flight path". If B1 was running parallel and straight ahead towards the hoop and he got to the spot on the floor before A1 went airborne, then you would have a PC foul depending on contact...

But they aren't falling away to absorb contact...the defender flopped trying to sucker us into calling a PC. That's where I am seeing the play differently than some of the others. In my mind - as the original OP was talking about - flopping is the defender throwing themselves down when there isn't really much of a chance of contact by the shooter in the first place. So defender lets out the big yell and throws him/herself down and then the shooter ends up not having any place to land.

But if you have cookies, I can be convinced to see it your way!:D

He didn't say parallel. He said the same path. A1 is following B1 and essentially runs him over.

I see what you're saying. I was not picturing a true flop. As I said earlier, I think we're all envisioning the play a little bit differently.

While I'm all for "majority rules", (and especially for anything that helps make rocky grumpy :D), 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?

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

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

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.

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?

[QUOTE=M&M Guy;826587]While I'm all for "majority rules", (and especially for anything that helps make rocky grumpy :D), 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 :confused:, 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? :confused:
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." :D

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

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?

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.

You don't have to picture anything. If you move to a different position after I'm airborne, you're responsible for any contact that occurs.

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

[QUOTE=Scrapper1;826616]Block. Once a player is airborne, if the defensive player moves to a new spot, the defender is responsible for the contact. :eek:

That is NOT entirely true! If you are picturing B1 sliding sideways under an airborne A1, yes, but I don't believe that is we have been talking about.

Once LPG has been initially established, he/she may move sideways, obliquely, and backwards to guard a player. If A1 is driving to the hoop and goes airborne and B1, who is in front of him and had LGP, then moves backwards and gets croaked (even if B1 is moving) it is a PC foul all the way. Too many coaches and newbie refs think B1 can't be moving at all! Another MYTH. :rolleyes:

Not true. I can back up and be moving and if you croak me, there better be a PC foul. If I'm the defensive coach, I am getting a T called on me if you call that a block b/c you kicked the call big time and my player could have gotten hurt as well. :mad:

And you're saying that LGP goes out the window with an airborne shooter?

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.

I agree with you, I think that is what he is saying.
This is killing me! :rolleyes:
I never thought a flop post would go more than two pages...:D

Slightly different play again:
B1 sprinting down on D to get into position. Turns, and establishes LGP just before A1 takes off.
B1 never really gets stopped, though, and takes a couple of steps backwards due to momentum while A1 is in the air.
Had he not moved, A1 would have contacted him almost immediately after takeoff; but the movement delayed contact by about half a second.

Who calls a block because B1 got to a "different spot" after A1 was airborne?

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

You keep saying this same thing over and over. (I especially like the croaking part. :) ) And if we are talking about a dribbler or a stationary player, then you'd be right. But the rule specifically says:

When guarding an airborne player, you have to be at the point of contact BEFORE the player leaves the ground, even if that point of contact is directly backwards from where you were before the opponent left the ground.

It doesn't say that.

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...

The cookies in our group are obviously better quality than the other group's cookies... :D

So what's your ruling?

As described, block. If I would've called a PC, it may have been a call I could sell, but it would be wrong, by rule.

I would've answered sooner, but I was cleaning cookie crumbs out of my keyboard.

It doesn't use that particular wording, but that's what it means. You have to be in "position" before the player goes airborne. The rule only comes into play if there is a point of contact, so that's why I worded it that way.

The rule says the player must be in legal position; the only place that's even close to being defined is LGP. I respectfully disagree that stepping backwards, within the path of A1, means a loss of legal position.

When guarding an airborne player, you have to be at the point of contact BEFORE the player leaves the ground, even if that point of contact is directly backwards from where you were before the opponent left the ground.[/QUOTE]

You are not reading the rule correctly. :eek:
You would be incorrect giving a block to a player who is backing up, even if his new spot is two feet behind where he was standing prior to A1 "taking off" (Air Jordan!)

No you don't. You have to be IN THE PATH and NOT MOVE FORWARD. Moving backwards, possibly to the point were A1 will land, doesn't change the result....the defender has satisfied all the requirements of LGP and is legally moving to maintain it.

Right on Snags! :D
Legal position is just his spot on the floor.
I also respectfully disagree with him as well.
This can't be a blocking call on B1. :eek:
That would be a miscarriage of justice! :D

While correct in terms of LGP, and all the points listed in 4-23-3, how does that correspond with the rule regarding an airborne player with the ball, 4-23-4?

you beat me to it Cam. :cool:
I don't think he is getting the concept of "moving" as being legal for defenders. He must have games with all zone defenses and the players just stand still! :D

This is where we disagree, as is obvious by now. I think the rule does not allow the defender to move after the opponent has become airborne. I understand why you and Art, inter alia, disagree. I simply don't believe that it's the intent of the rules to allow a player to move to a spot under an airborne player.

From the casebook:


10.6.1 SITUATION A: B1 takes a certain spot on the court before A1 jumps in
the air to catch a pass: (a) A1 lands on B1; or (b) B1 moves to a new spot whileA1 is airborne. A1 lands on one foot and then charges into B1. RULING: In (a)and (b), the foul is on A1. (4-23-5d)

Reading between the lines here...in Sit. (b), it became a foul on A1 because he LANDED on one foot and THEN charged into B1...so while it may not spell it out, if B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne and A1 lands on B1, that's a foul on B1.

You are partially correct in this statement. The intent is to not allow B1, who is not in the path...of A1, to SLIDE under the airborne A1. That we can agree on. You are taking it a step further when you apply it to the situation we have been discussing with B1 who established LGP and then backs up.

"is the horse dead yet?" I know we have beat the heck out of it! :D

Don't fall into the trap of confusing LGP with a legal position. I know you know the difference. 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.

I believe the committee had the intent of making the airborne player an exception to the LGP provisions, since they mention it specifically in a different section of the rules.

Without trying to sound self-important, I can assure you that is not the case.

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

Where is the direction of B1 mentioned in 4-24-4(b)?

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.

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.

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.

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

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???

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

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?

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.