Quote:
Originally posted by egausch
The Blarge (or is it Chock  ) call certainly consumes a lot of forum bandwidth. Yet the current rules (NFHS) appear to be very clear. We all know the appropriate sections so I won't repeat them. Setting aside the "Where on the court did it occur?" issue, why is there such confusion?
As a continuation of a previous reply, it seems to me that "time and distance" have a definate bearing on who has the "greater responsibility", when a defensive player takes a "legal guarding position" directly in the offensive player's path. Yet the rules clearly state if the defense is there first with legal position, the greater responsibility is on the offense to avoid the contact. But reaction times are finite! Many times the offense can't possibly avoid the contact. The rules seem to encourage contact with the benefit of getting opposing players in foul trouble. Does this seemingly unbalanced situation contribute to the confusion?
Considering this, my main question is to the veterans out there. It used to be that "time and distance" DID matter. Why did the rules folks change it?
Without this, officials have no room to apply their best judgement to these calls. Our legal system is full of words like "reasonable"..., granting jurys and judges the necessary room to use their best judgement.
Signed,
Confused (EG)
|
Coach,
I've thought about this a lot, too, and I see your point very clearly. Here's how I think about it: Taking the charge in the fraction-of-a-second type of play is extremely difficult to pull off. You will rarely see it happen more than once or twice in a game, because it's not all that possible to get to the spot in postion, without the dribbler seeing you headed there so that he can change direction. Remember, the defender isn't just materializing in the path of the dribbler with no apparent warning. If the dribbler has his eyes up at all, he should see it coming, and at least hesitate. I think the "risk" is about even on both sides.