Directives
 

As NCAA/HS meetings are occuring, has anyone received the following message from their supervisors?

Game reminders
1. Bodies down... you must have a whistle

No. I have heard that over the years, but not everyone agrees with that black and white premise or uses that phrase. Bodies can be on the floor and nothing illegal can take place.

Peace

Officially, no. We have been told to know how they got there, but no directives per se.

I have been told that in feed back from a follow on varsity crew, who proceeded to have a no-call with bodies on the floor in the first minute of their game.

I'm talking specifically about block/charge or pass/crass situations where the defender "flops" but causes himself & the shooter or passer to fall in the paint. Bracing ones self or backing up (after obtaining LGP) for imminent contact is not what I'm speaking of.

I know last year, guys on the Forum were saying a flop w/contact doesnt have to be a block... even if it causes both players to land in the paint.

So far, I've done a couple scrimmages, 1 meeting (two different leagues) & I've heard the same thing, bodies down requires a whistle.

The "know how they got to the floor" concept still allows officials to put their personal interpretation on the play. The defender flopped so I know how he got there but I still choose not to call the play, even though we have 2 bodies laying in the paint as he uses the unauthorized "get up" signal.

Had a play early in 2 different scrimmages where we called the flop a block & it was so wonderful to hear the coach say, "they arent allowing it, stop flopping & move your feet!"

Had we no-called the first one, then called the second one & maybe no called another, that is what leads to an inconsistent game.

IMO, no calling it encourages the defense to try the fool the referee play again.
Calling the flop a block makes it stop.

I get the same reaction from my no-calls to be honest.

"He's not going to give you that, stay in there."

I personally don't like calling the block when the defender hasn't done anything wrong. Falling backwards is legal, unless that action puts him into a path he would otherwise not have been in. That's rarely the case, I think.

Most times he falls back, in the same path, so if I have to make a call, I'll go PC.

Are you talking about 1 body on the floor or bodies (plural)? There's a difference. If a defender flops and he's the only one on the flooar while the rest of the players are headed back up court I don't see the need to call a block.

Totally agree BNR! 5 on 4 is penalty enough :)
From the OP:

When a defender flops & that action doesnt allow the shooter to safely land, we still should protect the shooter (up & down) so its a block in that sitch. For the life of me, I cannot understand how a flop which causes multiple bodies to be down in the paint can be no-called simply because the defender flopped.

We promote what we allow...

If he flops & the shooter can continue unhindered, yeah, I can see it as a play on sitch.

It is, with the most common types of flops, actually quite rare and difficult for a flop to increase the amount of contact such that it causes the shooter to go down when they would have not otherwise gone down. It is also very unlikely that the flop diminishes the safety for the shooter. If the flopper had remained in position, the contact would have almost always been greater. By flopping away, it usually either reduces or eliminates any contact that occurs.

The times where that isn't true is when the flopper has leaned sideways in addition to flopping....illegally leaning into the path of the shooter. That alone, if there is contact, is likely grounds for a block and the addition of a flop doesn't alter the likely result (and call).

As for multiple bodies going down with a no call...sometimes that results from the defender flopping and the shooter contorting their movements to make the play....all without contact. Even with contact, it is possible the defender was legal and the contact caused the shooter to go off balance but not knock the defender out of position followed by the flop. The flop doesn't cause the multiple bodies to go down. The flop is just coincidental to bodies going down.

The directive of needing a foul when two or more bodies go down isn't 100%, but it is more like 99%. If there was enough contact that two bodies ended up on the floor, it is extremely likely that one of them committed a foul (with a couple of exceptions).

When I train/evaluate guys, I do tell them when bodies are on the floor, know how they got there. Because sure enough, one of coaches will want something.

But to say that bodies down is always a whistle is bad advice.

They've been using that phrase for years now & it still leads to the no-call while waving "get up" more often than not. Knowing how they got there, unfortunatlely, doesnt lead to the correct call being made.

I respect that, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I will always listen to the guy that gives me a schedule & call it like he says. Guess thats why my schedule increases every year...

I don't like this mechanic.

As for missing the correct call, this can happen in any type of contact.

Here's what I don't get.

Assuming the defender falls backwards, remaining in the shooter's path in which they were already established, what is he doing illegally that would warrant a blocking foul?

So did you want our opinions or do you think we should do what your supervisor tells you to do?

Kinda missing the point of your last paragraph in regards to the subject.

What you describe sounds like a defender falling backwards bracing for imminent contact AFTER obtaining LGP. Nothing illegal about that... I dont consider that a flop.

What I'm talking about is not obtaining LGP (usually a 2ndary defender) and laying down on the play to get a call.


Actually, I just asked if anybody else is hearing this directive across the country... but opinions are always welcomed :D

It was in regards to the following:

Alright then, but I've been hearing people say that since my first days in officiating, so it's not something new, that's for sure. It's more a of "when in Rome..." type of deal that I'm sure most of the officials here do or don't do based on whom they are working for. It's safe to say most of the folks here who care enough about officiating that they discuss it online are getting better schedules every year.