Why is the defender moving legally to protect themselves from imminent contact now the one you are making responsible for making the play more "dangerous". The shooter is the one who went airborne and is now out of control and about to run into a legally placed defender. Rules say the defender is allowed to protect themselves, now you want to enforce an interpretation that says the defender following the rules needs to be punished: for making the situation worse for the shooter by protecting themselves legally? Why is risk of injury/concussion/dental work etc to the defender of less concern to you then the offensive player when the defender is doing nothing wrong?

So despite the rules allowing the player to protect themself in a culture much more sensitive then ever to concussions and collisions, you are not going to call
the PC unless the" stay up and take" it? I can support a no call but calling a block doesn't seem supported by rule.

In practice, there is a difference between falling/turning to protect yourself and falling early in what could be considered a flop. The rulebook obviously doesn't make a distinction, but when I'm working a game, I certainly do.

Does the rulebook say anything about calling a block even if it is a flop?

Please stop including this nonsense about protecting oneself against injury, concussions, etc. in your posts. Contact, both legal and illegal, occurs in basketball on every play. If a player or his parents are that concerned about injuries of any type than they should stop playing contact sports. The practice of ducking or turning away from imminent contact on these plays is going to have no significant impact on the likelihood that any particular player suffers an injury.

A lot of posters are talking about "leaning" backwards. It's not so much the leaning that I'm concerned with but the "falling back" which prevents displacement contact from being made. If a player is leaning back and contact is made it's pretty easy. If a player is falling back it typically causes the offensive player to fall on top of the defender, whether his momentum takes him there or he trips on the defender. Either way it's a block for me.

If the player had maintained his verticality, the offensive player wouldn't have fallen when the contact occurred? And if we're talking NFHS, even if the defender does fall straight back five feet before the contact is made, this is still not a blocking foul.

Not so fast!
 

1) Block! If the defender has to slide over several feet then I don't see how LGP was established in the path of the offensive player.

2) Not goal tending.

3) Looks more like a PC foul to me. Defender was there and set before offensive player. Sure, he fell back a little early but he had LGP and there was contact.

4) In real time it surely looked like a foul so I have no problem with it. If you have to use slo-mo to see that there was not much contact then its understandable how it goy called.

5) If you judged that the defender was riding the dribbler to the point that he was pushed of his line then a foul is warranted. But, I can see why there are those who would not call this.

6) Travel. Not only does he gather the ball on one foot before jumping, he lands with one foot down before the other so its not even a good jump stop.

The defender got both feet down, in the path, before the shooter left the floor at the end of the slide. So, how far he had to slide is not really relevant.

If someone wants to discuss the impact on the play being dangerous the identifying dangers seems logical.

Not sure what what the impact of research has been in your areas but in our neck of the woods coaches must now have levels of training in first aid, concussion protocols, are required to coach techniques that reduce risk of injuryetc. They must also track and ensure that players have had sufficient practice time or recovery time before playing in games. Teaching how to make a controlled fall in all sport and situations, tackling technique in impact sports, etc is now part of coaching, officiating and sport culture.

Officials here are commenting that falling away prior to contact is making the play more dangerous, the rules are saying the player can protect themself. The logical conclusion is that the officials are more concerned with risk of injury to an offensive player then to a defender which makes no sense.

No rule against flopping/falling/flailing etc. There is a rule against faking being fouled. I'm not sure how you can make the distinction instituations where the defender is going to be run into between:

1) A player falling to fake contact.
2) A player bailing out to avoid contact at all because they are soft.
3) A player controlling their fall or trying protect themself vs the contact.

These all seem intent driven which I can't judge. The rule book also covers situations for players faking fouls, the punishment is not a blocking foul.

I think the NCAA corrected their communications. I attended my clinics late September/early October. The video and slides on Arbiter are dated mid November.

It was very close but to me the shooter is leaving the floor as the defender gets his feet down so I don't feel he had any chance to avoid contact. How far he has to slide is a factor because he clearly was not in the path initially and did not get over intime for me. At full speed this is often tough to judge.

And, how far he had to slide does matter. If I set up in LGP on the right lane line in your path while you are several feet away when I slide over to the left lane line because you have adjusted your path then I have fouled you. Granted, if I can REESTABLISH LGP then its a charge but the farther you have to move the less time you have to get set.

To get what? :eek:

At the 19 second point of the video, defender has two feet down and is in the path, while the shooter's foot is still on the floor. It's certainly a close call, but it's the right call.

Rich1, There is almost nothing correct in your post....

Irrelevant. The shooter had a long time to avoid contact....before he started jumping. It is not like the defender appeared out of nothing. The shooter knows the defender is coming and has to make a choice. He chose to try to be the defender but didn't.

If the defender got his feet down before the shooter has left the floor, the defender got there.

All that matters is where he ended up, not how far he had to go to get there.
Not correct.
Again, not correct.