Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
Getting in a player's path under the basket such that is will cause them to alter their course is no more easy than getting in their path 5 feet in front of the basket for a similar effect. The shooter has every chance to pull up for a short jumper (unguarded) or even still take a layup if there is a defender waiting under the basket. No defender blocks that much area (unless they defender is an NFL offensive lineman).
|
Ok, I'm in
no posistion to know how Barb Jacob's mind works.
I don't entirely disagree with you. But, I think I kinda get what they're after with this rule. First of all, it's not called that often that I'm aware; in fact, I only remember it coming into play 2 or 3 times in the last couple of seasons. But I'm not going out too far on the limb to say they want basketball to stay in it's purest form, and there are other examples over time how this has come into play with rule changes. That's why I mentioned goaltending - as players got taller, the rulesmakers decided that's not how they envisioned the game. So they enacted a rule that kept players from just taking the easy way out while the only thing they're doing is standing there swatting away balls as they came towards the basket. I believe this was their thinking, as well as the added safety factor, on a player just setting up underneath the basket. They felt the player is not playing "legitimate" defense by just taking that spot on the floor and waiting for the offensive player to crash into them after the shot without any other possible legitimate defensive moves, such as attempting to block the shot, preventing a pass, etc. Those defensive moves, as well as taking the charge, could be done at any other spot on the floor, and even on this same spot if the drive comes along the baseline. But, if all they do is get to that spot and wait while there's a drive for a layup, the
only thing they can do is accept contact. Do you see the difference?
Now, I can't resist this shot at MTD:
Mark, are you saying Barb can never be a good rules interpreter because she was never an official? So, a person can never be good at a job if they've never done it before? That's not very liberal-minded of you...
