Help!!! What's the difference between a charge and a player control foul in NCAA?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

This discussion is a good example of why, we as officials, must use the rule book language in disscusing rules with layman.

As was noted earlier the term "offensive foul" is used is when describing fouls in games being played under NCAA, NFHS, or FIBA rules. There is no such thing as an "offensive foul" in these rule codes. An "offensive foul" is found in only the NBA and WNBA rule codes.

NFHS and NCAA Women's rules state that a "player control foul" is defined as a common foul committed by a player in control of the ball or by an airborne player and NCAA Men's rules state that "player control foul" is a common foul committed by a player in control of the ball. The penalty for a player control foul under all three codes is the same.

Player control fouls do not exist in FIBA rules. FIBA treats all personal fouls committed by a player whose team has control of the ball the same as the NCAA and NFHS does player control fouls.

As far as a charging foul is concerned both NCAA and NFHS rules are literally the same, the only difference being that the word "caused" comes immediately after the word "contact". Therefore, there is no difference in charging under NCAA and NFHS rules.

And as far as deciding when to call a foul a charge or a push, the NCAA and NFHS rule books do not give us any direction in this regard but the FIBA rule book does. FIBA actually defines pushing as: personal contact with any part of the body that takes place when a player forcibly moves or attempts to move an opposing player who has or does not have control of the ball.

I do not know if this helped clear up this discussion but it is very important to talk in rule book language and not layman terms. By doing that it will reduce misunderstanding among the people discussing the play as well as confuse coaches because we all know how well versed in the rules they are.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

Dan,
...To commit a charge, you must either have the ball or have recently released the ball with momentum carrying you into the defender, so defenders and offensive players moving off the ball cannot commit a charge....

Well, I hear you saying it but I don't see anywhere
that it's written this way. Here are the NFHS
rules, NCAA men/women similar except for the airborne
shooter:


4-7-2
...Charging is illegal personal contact caused by pushing
or moving into an opponent's torso.


Parts a, b, c & d tells us what this means with respect to
the player in control of the ball & those defending him.
It does not imply a charge is only committed by the
dribbler and it certainly says nothing about players who
just released the ball.


4-19-6
...A player control foul is a common foul committed by a
player while he/she is in control of the ball or by an
airborne shooter

(this last part differs for NCAA men)


4-19-2
...A common foul is a personal foul which is neither
flagrant, nor intentional nor committed against a player
trying or tapping for a field goal nor a part of a
double or multiple foul.

[BktBallRef]

I agree with Dan. Although the plays cited in the rulebook are committed by the offense, there's nothing that says a charge has to be committed by an offensive player. If a defensive player runs through a screener, he has charged. Whether you call it a push or a charge, it's the same thing. It's simply semantics.

[Hawks Coach]

Dan,
4-7-2 a-d is very relevant. Parts a-d give 4 examples of charging, each of which involve a player with the ball causing the illegal contact with the torso. This seems a compelling reason to believe that the defense pushes, the player with the ball charges. But there is more, as I stated in my first post. Please refer to my second reference, 10-6-1, on contact. This is the only other place in the rules where charging is mentioned (I have an electronic version of the rules and used the "find" feature, so trust me on this). In 10-6-1, charging is mentioned once. I will quote the last two sentences:

"It is a form of pushing when the player holding the ball is contacted by a defensive player who approaches from behind. Contact that is caused by the momentum of a player who has thrown for goal is a form of charging."

We have a definition followed by 4 examples involving a player with the ball that are charging (and no examples of charging without the ball). We have a statement that a defensive player running into the player with the ball commits a push (not a charge) and then a clarification that the term charging also extends to the player who released the ball on a try and subsequently made illegal contact due to momentum (giving a specific exception to the general rule that charging applies only to a player with the ball). How can you come up with a different interpretation of these sections? Where do you find any rule or case implying that a defensive player can charge, or an offensive player off the ball for that matter?

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by dhodges007

OK, with that definition, that brings me to a question...
A1 has the ball dribbling toward the basket. A2 has set up a screen for B1 who is closely guarding A1, B1 doesn't see the screen and plows right into him (see this all the time). Acc. to the above mentioned rule, that would be illegal contact by moving into an opponents torso. So, do you call it or is it a no-call

--Denny

I found a pertinent section under NF rules - I am sure NCAA has the same but don't have those rules. Knew it was there but missed it the first time.

10-6-3
In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener and if the opponent is running rapidly, the contact may be severe. Such a case is to be ruled as incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact and moves around the screen, and provided the screener is not displaced if he or she has the ball.

So much of what you see that is hard contact may just be incidental contact.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Dan,
4-7-2 a-d is very relevant. Parts a-d give 4 examples of charging, each of which involve a player with the ball causing the illegal contact with the torso. This seems a compelling reason to believe that the defense pushes, the player with the ball charges. But there is more, as I stated in my first post. Please refer to my second reference, 10-6-1, on contact. This is the only other place in the rules where charging is mentioned (I have an electronic version of the rules and used the "find" feature, so trust me on this). In 10-6-1, charging is mentioned once. I will quote the last two sentences:

"It is a form of pushing when the player holding the ball is contacted by a defensive player who approaches from behind. Contact that is caused by the momentum of a player who has thrown for goal is a form of charging."

We have a definition followed by 4 examples involving a player with the ball that are charging (and no examples of charging without the ball). We have a statement that a defensive player running into the player with the ball commits a push (not a charge) and then a clarification that the term charging also extends to the player who released the ball on a try and subsequently made illegal contact due to momentum (giving a specific exception to the general rule that charging applies only to a player with the ball). How can you come up with a different interpretation of these sections? Where do you find any rule or case implying that a defensive player can charge, or an offensive player off the ball for that matter?

Nah, you're just reading too much into it. Take a look
at your passage from 10-6-1 with my emphasis included:

"It is a form of pushing when the player holding the ball is contacted by a defensive player who approaches from behind. Contact that is caused by the momentum of a player who has thrown for goal is a form of charging."

10-6-1 doesn't define the only way to push, it gives one
example. It doesn't define the only way to charge,
it just gives an example. But I have even more compelling
evidence: if Tony & I agree, you can take it to the
bank!

[mick]

Originally posted by Dan_ref


Nah, you're just reading too much into it. Take a look
at your passage from 10-6-1 with my emphasis included:

"It is a form of pushing when the player holding the ball is contacted by a defensive player who approaches from behind. Contact that is caused by the momentum of a player who has thrown for goal is a form of charging."

10-6-1 doesn't define the only way to push, it gives one
example. It doesn't define the only way to charge,
it just gives an example. But I have even more compelling
evidence: if Tony & I agree, you can take it to the
bank! [/B]

All we have to do to understand that a charge can be a foul, other than player control, is to look at the foul signals.

NFHS: #10 Pushing or charging and NCAA: #20 Pushing or charging are identical.

NFHS: #12 Player control and NCVAA: #22 are identical

If charging was only PC then it wouldn't be the same signal as Pushing; it would be the same signal as Player control.

mick

You guys below me got it right. Basic rule of thumb is if he/she has the ball, it's PC, if not, it's a push. The "OFFENSIVE FOUL" stuff that everyone is getting confused by is what we hear on TV from the commentators of NBA games. In the NBA, CBA as well as Pro-Am leagues that use NBA rules, an offensive foul is ANY foul that occurs by the offense. This could be a foul AWAY from the ball as well. No shots and here we go the other way. Also, in the NBA, a PC foul results in NO BASKET!!( Just like HS.)Dosen't matter when he releases it!! Happy Officiating!!

[walter]

You have to be careful. A player with the ball CAN commit a foul which would not be a player control foul. The player can commit an intentional or flagrant personal foul or a technical foul.

[dhodges007]

Originally posted by walter
You have to be careful. A player with the ball CAN commit a foul which would not be a player control foul. The player can commit an intentional or flagrant personal foul or a technical foul.

Now what are some examples of this? I can't see anyone who has the ball commiting anything other than a PC... unless the commit a T by there language or throwing the ball at someone to injure them...

--Denny

[walter]

Here's one. One of my partners called it in a game and in our post game eval we all thought our supervisor was gonna kiss him he was so excited. A1 dribbling the ball and being very closely guarded (short of contact) by B1. A1 takes his right arm(he's dribbling with his left) and shoves B1 away from him (like a hook but with much more force). It was not a hook or a punch, A1 was clearing space in a very forceful manner. B1 was shoved to the ground (flop?!? some might argue yes). My partner immediately blew his whistle and signalled an intentional foul. Of course Coach A was initially very excited. My partner explained to the coach that the call was an intentional personal foul and why he ruled it as such and then we shot two shots and gave B the ball at the spot. The coach was fine with the explanation (the call happened in front of his bench) but boy was he upset with his player for commiting such a stupid foul. Our supervisor told us that the act was too severe just to call it a PC and move on and said he absolutely agreed with the call. The only other alternative he said would have been to rule the act a punch which constitutes fighting and eject the player.

[mick]

Originally posted by dhodges007

Now what are some examples of this? I can't see anyone who has the ball commiting anything other than a PC... unless the commit a T by there language or throwing the ball at someone to injure them...

--Denny

Airborne shooter smashes defender in the chops, or rakes his face, on the way down.
mick

[dhodges007]

Didn't think of that...thanks mick.

--Denny

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by dhodges007
I can't see anyone who has the ball commiting anything other than a PC... unless the commit a T by... throwing the ball at someone to injure them...

--Denny

I saw that happen, and it worked! including a bloody nose. I tossed the girl. Also tossed another player in that game who undercut an airborne rebounder, with the clear intention of injury. Coach went postal about both DQs; it was easy to see where the girls got their attitude!

[dhodges007]

Were you ready to toss the Coach?