Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Old School
The defensive player would have done better in my book, had he not went for the CHARGE and just went to defend the basket. Taking everything into consideration, this was the best choice left on the table, depend the basket, try to block the shot. The offensive player had too much momentum going to try and cutoff with the charge. Enter R4-27-5. When you look at the collision in this play, you can see it's not your patient contact to the torso charge. It's more of a train wreck where we got to people converging on the same point at the same time. At best, you should be thinking incidental contact, enter R4-27-5.
|
What do you mean by "defend the basket"? Trying to block the shot?
In FIBA rules the word "momentum" is used only once, when it is said that if an airborne player lands and his/her momentum causes him/her to contact an opponent who has LGP beyond the landing place, then the formerly airborne player is responsible for the contact.
In NCAA rules the word appears more often. Let's pick where also contacts are involved. Go to page 77, A.R. 72: again, the offensive player whose momentum causes the contact is responsible for it.
I don't have NFHS rules, but I strongly believe that they don't contain a line to support your thesis.
There is no request for a
patent torso contact in the rules. The offensive player contacted the torso of a defensive player who had LGP. It is true that it was a contact between
two players converging to the same place, but you seem to forget that one of them
had the ball!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Old School
The intelligent enforcement of the rule should have been a block. Calling a charge on this play, unfairly punishes good offensive basketball.
|
A charge on this play is a tough call, I applaud RookieDude for calling it. It recognizes good defense. I was always taught that the ball handler must expect to be guarded until the very last moment, when on the floor. He had one foot on the floor when the opponent obtained LGP: charge. His momentum has nothing to do with the choice of the call: he was required by the rules to avoid the contact.
A block could have been a reasonable call, after all it was a question of centimeters (sorry, inches
) and sometimes officials make mistakes. But the
correct call was a charge and the slow-motion supports this. A no-call is not to be considered in any case, in this play.
If by "intelligent" you mean "hey, it's a tough call, let's go with a foul on the defense", then you are not a real basketball official.