NCAA Block/Charge Definition

[All_Heart]

This is from the NCAA Rule book pg 67

A.R. 7. (Women) B1 is standing directly under (a) the cylinder or (b) the backboard before A1 jumps for a layup. The forward momentum of airborne shooter A1 causes A1 to run into B1.

RULING: In both (a) and (b), B1 is not in a legal guarding position. Blocking foul on B1.

Could someone explain why this is a block? Where in the book (besides here) does it say that B1 is not in legal guarding position because she is under the basket? It says that this is a charge for Mens.

Here is the mens:

A.R. 6. (Men) B1 is standing under the basket before A1 jumps for a layup. The forward momentum of A1 causes contact with B1.

RULING: B1 is entitled to the position provided that there was no movement into such position by B1 after A1 leaped from the floor. When the ball goes through the basket before the contact occurs, the contact shall be ignored unless B1 has been placed at a disadvantage by being unable to rebound when the shot is missed or unable to put the ball in play without delay, when the try is successful. When the contact occurs before the ball becomes dead, a charging foul has been committed by A1. When B1 moves into the path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul shall be on B1. It shall be an intentional foul when a player moves into the path of an airborne opponent with the intent to undercut and contact results. When the moving player moves under the airborne opponent and there is danger of severe injury as a result of the contact, it shall be a flagrant personal foul on the moving player.

[All_Heart]

Found it:

Apendix III Section 12b (Women’s) Legal Defense

The defender is entitled to any spot on the playing court she
desires, provided that she gets to that spot first, without contact
with an opponent. A defender who establishes a position directly
under the cylinder or behind the backboard when a dribbler
becomes an airborne shooter is not in a legal guarding position,
regardless if she got to the spot first. If contact occurs, the official
must decide whether the contact is incidental or a foul has
been committed by the defender. Exception: When a dribbler
takes a path to the basket parallel with the end line, the defender’s
position directly under the cylinder or behind the backboard
is a legal guarding position and, if contact occurs, the
official must decide whether the contact is incidental or a foul
has been committed by the dribbler or airborne shooter

[Texas Aggie]

Stupid rule.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Stupid rule.

Why? Just because you don't like it?

[tmp44]

Originally Posted by All_Heart

Found it:

Apendix III Section 12b (Women’s) Legal Defense

The defender is entitled to any spot on the playing court she
desires, provided that she gets to that spot first, without contact
with an opponent. A defender who establishes a position directly
under the cylinder or behind the backboard when a dribbler
becomes an airborne shooter is not in a legal guarding position,
regardless if she got to the spot first. If contact occurs, the official
must decide whether the contact is incidental or a foul has
been committed by the defender. Exception: When a dribbler
takes a path to the basket parallel with the end line, the defender’s
position directly under the cylinder or behind the backboard
is a legal guarding position and, if contact occurs, the
official must decide whether the contact is incidental or a foul
has been committed by the dribbler or airborne shooter

It seems that the women's game and the NBA game are becoming more and more alike all the time, both mechanics and rule wise. As I read this, it appears to be identical to the arc rule in the NBA, just without the marking on the floor...is that correct?

[Texas Aggie]

Just because you don't like it?

No, its because there's no coherent rationale for declaring a small portion of the court as a "charge-free" zone. There is significant play under the basket or backboard where this rule gives the offensive player a totally unfair advantage. Why should the offense have this advantage by rule? The rule, which I'm not sure is spelled out in the actual set of rules (is is?), talks about a "dribbler" which is undefined. Take a play where a dribbler goes airborne and runs into a defender, you have either a no call or a block, even if the defender was in an otherwise legal guarding position. Take the exact same play where the offensive player received a pass and went up. Do we have a charge now because she wasn't a "dribbler?" If so, how do you know?

Not liking a rule doesn't mean I think its stupid. I don't like the NFHS rule requiring free throw lane folks to stay put until the ball hits the rim/backboard. I also don't really like the 5 second closely guarded rule while dribbling. I can also give you a few others, but I don't think these rules are stupid. The above one is.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

No, its because there's no coherent rationale for declaring a small portion of the court as a "charge-free" zone.

Because you say there is not a coherent rational makes it so?

The rule is there because someone felt it was necessary. Some people do not feel you are playing defense at that position. You do not have to agree with it, but the last time I checked no one asked you or me why a rule should be in place or not be in place.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

No, its because there's no coherent rationale for declaring a small portion of the court as a "charge-free" zone. There is significant play under the basket or backboard where this rule gives the offensive player a totally unfair advantage. Why should the offense have this advantage by rule? The rule, which I'm not sure is spelled out in the actual set of rules (is is?), talks about a "dribbler" which is undefined. Take a play where a dribbler goes airborne and runs into a defender, you have either a no call or a block, even if the defender was in an otherwise legal guarding position. Take the exact same play where the offensive player received a pass and went up. Do we have a charge now because she wasn't a "dribbler?" If so, how do you know?

Not liking a rule doesn't mean I think its stupid. I don't like the NFHS rule requiring free throw lane folks to stay put until the ball hits the rim/backboard. I also don't really like the 5 second closely guarded rule while dribbling. I can also give you a few others, but I don't think these rules are stupid. The above one is.

We've had this discussion on this board before (many times), and the biggest problem is that most people who don't work NCAAW ruleset don't understand what the rule actually is saying...it DOES NOT give the dribbler the right to run over the defender under the basket. If the defender has established legal guarding position and is moving with the dribbler (maintaining legal guarding position) they have every right to keep that position. The rule DOES mean that a secondary defender can not set up and take a charge under the basket unless the drive is parallel to the baseline (as in going for a reverse lay-in). The rationale has always been that taking up defensive position directly under the basket is a non-basketball play and serves only to lead to injuries - get out of there and play some good defense.

And I'm not sure why you are confused by the "dribbler" part...if the person is dribblling the ball, they are a dribbler. If they are catching a pass and turning to shoot, they aren't dribbling, are they? The rule applies to drives to the basket and secondary defenders stepping in to draw a charge under the basket.

[All_Heart]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

The rule DOES mean that a secondary defender can not set up and take a charge under the basket unless the drive is parallel to the baseline (as in going for a reverse lay-in). The rationale has always been that taking up defensive position directly under the basket is a non-basketball play and serves only to lead to injuries - get out of there and play some good defense.

And I'm not sure why you are confused by the "dribbler" part...if the person is dribblling the ball, they are a dribbler. If they are catching a pass and turning to shoot, they aren't dribbling, are they? The rule applies to drives to the basket and secondary defenders stepping in to draw a charge under the basket.

I don't see anywhere that this only applies to secondary defenders. That is the NBA rule.

Also this rule says "directly under", which IMO leaves alot of grey area. This is why the NBA has the restricted area marked with a line.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by All_Heart

I don't see anywhere that this only applies to secondary defenders. That is the NBA rule.

Also this rule says "directly under", which IMO leaves alot of grey area. This is why the NBA has the restricted area marked with a line.

I neither know nor care what the NBA rule is...I am telling you what the correct interpretation and application of the NCAAW rule is for a defender under the basket...just like in NFHS, we get rules and then interpretations of the rule (called case book plays in HS) which tell us exactly how to call the rule...

And why would directly under the basket cause any more confusion than the use of the word "dribbler"...how can there be gray area - are you under the basket or behind the backboard? Then it's either a no-call or a block...pretty simple.

[All_Heart]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I neither know nor care what the NBA rule is...I am telling you what the correct interpretation and application of the NCAAW rule is for a defender under the basket...just like in NFHS, we get rules and then interpretations of the rule (called case book plays in HS) which tell us exactly how to call the rule...

Could you post the interpretation? I'm just trying to learn this rule in order to call this properly.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by All_Heart

Could you post the interpretation? I'm just trying to learn this rule in order to call this properly.

Not sure where you are going to find a direct interpretation. A lot of interpretations for NCAA rules are no directly in the rulebook (also remember the NCAA does not have a casebook). A lot of NCAA interpretations are on their tapes and video bulletins and talked about in detail at the NCAA Meetings. I can tell you from what I have seen Rocky's interpretation is pretty much on target. Also a lot of what you do is following the philosophies of assignors as to what to call and why.

Peace

[Texas Aggie]

Some people do not feel you are playing defense at that position.

Frankly, that's an absurd view. If you are not playing defense, then it stands to reason that it would be easy for the offensive player to avoid contact, which would mean there's no reason for the rule.

Why would you not be playing defense when you are "directly" under the basket, but you are playing defense when you are inches away from being directly under the basket?

if the person is dribblling the ball, they are a dribbler

Can you support that with a rules citation? I'm not trying to be picky here. If you look up the word, "intentional" in websters and compare it to how an intentional foul is defined, you will see different meanings. Besides, this doesn't square with the scenario I posted: it makes no sense to give protection to a dribbler becoming an airborne shooter, but not to give the same protection to a player receiving a pass who then becomes an airborne shooter.

If you like the rule, fine. But I think its stupid.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Frankly, that's an absurd view. If you are not playing defense, then it stands to reason that it would be easy for the offensive player to avoid contact, which would mean there's no reason for the rule.

Why would you not be playing defense when you are "directly" under the basket, but you are playing defense when you are inches away from being directly under the basket?

It is a game, relax. All games have rules because someone felt there was a need for that rule. Now if you feel it is not a good rule, do not call the game that way or do not work that level. Then you will not have to worry about "why" the rule is the way it is.

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Can you support that with a rules citation? I'm not trying to be picky here. If you look up the word, "intentional" in websters and compare it to how an intentional foul is defined, you will see different meanings. Besides, this doesn't square with the scenario I posted: it makes no sense to give protection to a dribbler becoming an airborne shooter, but not to give the same protection to a player receiving a pass who then becomes an airborne shooter.

If you like the rule, fine. But I think its stupid.

One of the problems with the NCAA there is no casebook. So I cannot give you a specific rule reference. Even in NF the current rule is "interpreted" in the casebook and other NF literature. Also remember this is also a NCAA Women's rule and that is how they want it called. The reality is that is the way it is expected to be called on the Men's side as well, they just have not come out and put in black and white. Once again the issue is not what you or I think the rule is there for a good reason. They felt in necessary to form the rule to their specifications, not what you think it is. They are also not the NF either.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by All_Heart

Could you post the interpretation? I'm just trying to learn this rule in order to call this properly.

Try going to www.eofficals.com, work your way thru NCAA, Women's Basketball, and look through the archives...it will be in there somewhere under the Officiating Memo's or Officiating Program...that's about all I can tell you.

And as for Aggie not liking the rule and thinking it's stupid - ok. But to pick at it because you can't figure out what a "dribbler" is...well, that's not very intelligent either.