Flopping to Falling and everywhere in between.

[Indianaref]

Most guys I know around here that call a block when the kid falls backward with little or no contact always ended telling me they are "teaching" that kid a lesson & "that'll stop that". I like Adam's response about do it the way your boss wants it called.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

How does a defender fading away cause any contact? Seems to me that the offensive player is the one who has caused this contact by continuing to go at the defender in his path. Maybe if we were to properly call charges when they happen, defenders wouldn't fell compelled to fade away so much.

I agree with this. If there is contact when the defender starts to fall early then there would have been contact if the defender didn't fall. Doesn't seem like this contact can be the fault of the defender.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I agree with this. If there is contact when the defender starts to fall early then there would have been contact if the defender didn't fall. Doesn't seem like this contact can be the fault of the defender.

I agree. I'll add, though, that if the defender starts falling early, it becomes more difficult to tell if he fell due to contact or due to his own actions. If I can't tell, I may go with a no-call.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Adam

I agree. I'll add, though, that if the defender starts falling early, it becomes more difficult to tell if he fell due to contact or due to his own actions. If I can't tell, I may go with a no-call.

That's exactly it -- he doesn't get to "fall to avoid contact". He can turn to absorb contact or he can give ground. Falling/throwing himself to the ground doesn't fit that criteria, IMO. It's dangerous and it almost always makes us look bad, no matter what we call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

That's exactly it -- he doesn't get to "fall to avoid contact". He can turn to absorb contact or he can give ground. Falling/throwing himself to the ground doesn't fit that criteria, IMO. It's dangerous and it almost always makes us look bad, no matter what we call.

I agree with this; I've just found no-calls to be sufficient to put a stop to it. Only once in recent memory have I had a team not get the message on the first one. He got my more direct message/warning.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Adam

I agree with this; I've just found no-calls to be sufficient to put a stop to it. Only once in recent memory have I had a team not get the message on the first one. He got my more direct message/warning.

What, however, if the offensive player trips over the defender and ends up on the floor himself? It's not the offensive player's fault that this happened? And I'm not going to look at it as, "well, it would've been a player control foul had the player stayed in there" cause, well, he DIDN'T.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

What, however, if the offensive player trips over the defender and ends up on the floor himself? It's not the offensive player's fault that this happened? And I'm not going to look at it as, "well, it would've been a player control foul had the player stayed in there" cause, well, he DIDN'T.

Honestly, I'm good with a PC because the defender hasn't lost his LGP, hasn't done anything illegal. All he did wrong was panic and move backwards.

If the defender falls into a different path and that causes the contact, I'll go with a block.

I'd really have to see it to know how I'd rule on a given play.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Rich

That's exactly it -- he doesn't get to "fall to avoid contact". He can turn to absorb contact or he can give ground. Falling/throwing himself to the ground doesn't fit that criteria, IMO. It's dangerous and it almost always makes us look bad, no matter what we call.

I really like how the bold part is worded, I think that's a very good justification as to this being a block. I agree with previous posters about being able to turn to absorb contact, moving backwards, etc., but when their backwards lean will clearly result in them falling down prior to or without contact, then I think they are also giving up LGP

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

Honestly, I'm good with a PC because the defender hasn't lost his LGP, hasn't done anything illegal. All he did wrong was panic and move backwards.

If the defender falls into a different path and that causes the contact, I'll go with a block.

I'd really have to see it to know how I'd rule on a given play.

I agree Adam.

Originally Posted by Rich

What, however, if the offensive player trips over the defender and ends up on the floor himself? It's not the offensive player's fault that this happened? And I'm not going to look at it as, "well, it would've been a player control foul had the player stayed in there" cause, well, he DIDN'T.

Sure it is the offensive player's fault. They kept going at a defender who was legally in their path. They were the one in control of the action and contact. All I have is a defender in LGP legally ducking by backing a way from contact and falling in the process. If the offense wants to jump onto/over them, that is their problem.

I very wall may not call a PC but I'm sure not calling a block with no rule support whatsoever.

[Pantherdreams]

Well this has gotten heated .. . I guess I should chime back in on the various scenarios and my reasoning (Assuming LGP was established in each):

1) Kid falls prior to contact. No contact occurs at all. No-Call can't call fouls without contact.

2) Kid starts falling/falls prior to contact would have be PC if kid got hit and knocked down but now contact may still be offenses fault but is not disadvantaging player already on the way to the floor. No Call.

3) Player falls prior to contact but now becomes responsible for contact with outsretched arm or flailing body part that trips up or impedes an offensive player. Block/Illegal Hands on Defense.

4) Player leans/braces to absorb and protect but contact sends them to ground. Charge.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Well this has gotten heated .. . I guess I should chime back in on the various scenarios and my reasoning (Assuming LGP was established in each):

1) Kid falls prior to contact. No contact occurs at all. No-Call can't call fouls without contact.

2) Kid starts falling/falls prior to contact would have be PC if kid got hit and knocked down but now contact may still be offenses fault but is not disadvantaging player already on the way to the floor. No Call.

3) Player falls prior to contact but now becomes responsible for contact with outsretched arm or flailing body part that trips up or impedes an offensive player. Block/Illegal Hands on Defense.

4) Player leans/braces to absorb and protect but contact sends them to ground. Charge.

Sounds good to me.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sounds good to me.

Me too.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sounds good to me.

Me too, actually. I rarely see kids fall straight backwards.