![]() |
|
|
|||
Is there still be a belief by some officials that the defender has to "take the contact" in order to have a charge?
We must rid the earth of such thinking!
__________________
"Coach, that was an easy call for me to make" |
|
|||
IT should have been a charge. However how they adjudicated was correct. The offensive player was in his shooting motion at the time of the foul so the basket counts, then adjudicate the penalty for the block.
__________________
in OS I trust |
|
|||
Pause at first contact: ball is still in air toward the shooter. (And yes, I realize they don't get to do that and it's a really tough call to make live.)
|
|
|||
Quote:
Would love to have seen the coach's reaction. |
|
|||
Well I might get torn apart for it, but I'll go to bat for the lead just a little bit here. While I do still think it was a charge after several viewings, I also think it would be interesting to see an endline angle, which obviously is unavailable. Just before contact, W11 runs directly between the players and the camera angle, and just as he gets out of the way, the contact is occurring, and the kid who took the "charge" has his right leg at a weird angle outside of his frame, whereas it didn't look like that before the view is interrupted. This could imply that he was, in fact, sliding to his left at the time of impact. (Although I do acknowledge that his could be part of him bracing for contact as well, as I said, I'd love to have an unobstructed angle of the full play)
I realize I'm analyzing this too far, and as I said, I still think it was a charge, but the more I've watched it, the less certain I think I am- |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
Unless he clearly got the shot off before the contact, this is an easy basket to wave off. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Get it right! 1999 (2x), 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2019 |
|
|||
Explain for the casual observer, please!
|
|
|||
Some would say:
"If the defender is moving backwards, it's not a charge." "If the defender doesn't get run over, it's not a charge." "The offense must go 'to and through' the defender to be a charge." "If the offense alters the path slightly so the contact is shoulder-to-shoulder and not torso-to-torso, it's not a charge." |
|
|||
I understand where you are coming from on the other platitudes (if I'm using that word correctly), but what is about "to and through" that you don't like, specifically?
__________________
Things turn out best for people who make the best of the way things turn out. -- John Wooden |
|
|||
I know the question was not directed to me, but "to and through" has nothing to do with the rule. That phrase often implies that it is required for the offensive player to drive through the defender, and put them on the ground for it to be a foul. If there is legal guarding position and sufficient contact to cause displacement, then it should be an offensive foul. I've called charges where the defender remained standing and the offensive player was on the ground before (though these are typically better left as a no-call).
|
|
|||
Quote:
|
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Block / Charge | Jumpshooter40 | Basketball | 10 | Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:36pm |
Charge vs Block | Jumpshooter40 | Basketball | 8 | Mon Jan 06, 2014 07:37pm |
Block/charge | JeroenB | Basketball | 28 | Tue Dec 11, 2012 06:31am |
Block/Charge | drinkeii | Basketball | 16 | Thu Dec 19, 2002 01:05am |
block/charge | wolfe44 | Basketball | 11 | Thu Dec 12, 2002 09:29am |