Faking a charge

rbmartin · #1 (**permalink**) Sat Sep 03, 2005, 02:24pm

Pardon me if this is a stupid question, but I'd like to be an educated spectator of the game.
Can a penalty be called on a defensive player for faking a charge by the offensive player? I couldn't find any reference to this subject in the NCAA rule book.

refTN · #2 (**permalink**) Sat Sep 03, 2005, 04:58pm

Yes, but it depends on your definition of faking. As an official, if a kid is falling before he gets hit but there is contact I will call a block or nothing at all. If the kid just falls down with no contact more than likely I will no call it, but by rule it is supposed to be a technical foul for flopping.

JugglingReferee · #3 (**permalink**) Sat Sep 03, 2005, 09:58pm

Quote:

Originally posted by refTN
I will call a block or nothing

A block? Did he impede the progress of the offense by starting to move back early?

I hope I never call a block for this.

refTN · #4 (**permalink**) Sun Sep 04, 2005, 01:00am

I look at it like this and it just depends on philosophy:

I think if it causes the kid to miss the shot then I have to have something, whether it be a T or a block, and I mean on plays where the defender flops and lands on the floor underneath the airborne shooter.

Dan_ref · #5 (**permalink**) Sun Sep 04, 2005, 09:46am

Quote:

Originally posted by refTN
I look at it like this and it just depends on philosophy:

I think if it causes the kid to miss the shot then I have to have something, whether it be a T or a block, and I mean on plays where the defender flops and lands on the floor underneath the airborne shooter.

If there's no contact how can you have a foul?

ChuckElias · #6 (**permalink**) Sun Sep 04, 2005, 10:42am

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
If there's no contact how can you have a foul?

By using the wisdom of Solomon. The T is too severe. A no-call is too lenient. Cut that baby right down the middle and call a block.

Not saying I like it, but that's obviously the philosophy. A lot of guys use it. I must admit that I have also done it. Once.

Going thru old threads. We talked about this briefly: http://officialforum.com/thread/15232

[Edited by ChuckElias on Sep 4th, 2005 at 12:01 PM]

crazy voyager · #7 (**permalink**) Sun Sep 04, 2005, 02:41pm

Fiba, faking ecuals technical- I like the rule, it makes the play a lot more intresting

Dan_ref · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 05, 2005, 11:30am

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
If there's no contact how can you have a foul?

By using the wisdom of Solomon. The T is too severe. A no-call is too lenient. Cut that baby right down the middle and call a block.

Not saying I like it, but that's obviously the philosophy. A lot of guys use it. I must admit that I have also done it. Once.

Going thru old threads. We talked about this briefly: http://officialforum.com/thread/15232

[Edited by ChuckElias on Sep 4th, 2005 at 12:01 PM]

Apparently refTN has retained counsel to speak for him.

Why is a no-call too lenient of there is no contact?

ChuckElias · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 05, 2005, 11:36am

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Why is a no-call too lenient of there is no contact?

Because by rule, it's a T, isn't it?

Dan_ref · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 05, 2005, 11:45am

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Why is a no-call too lenient of there is no contact?

Because by rule, it's a T, isn't it?

But you've already decided in your judgement the non-contact does not deserve a T...IOW you've decided that the defender has not violated that rule.

By rule the only choice left is a no-call.

ChuckElias · #11 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 05, 2005, 12:01pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
But you've already decided in your judgement the non-contact does not deserve a T...IOW you've decided that the defender has not violated that rule.

By rule the only choice left is a no-call.

I think the problem is that the defender definitely did violate the rule, but the penalty for the violation is too severe.

So you can do nothing, or you can give a lesser penalty.

WhistlesAndStripes · #12 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 05, 2005, 12:11pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
But you've already decided in your judgement the non-contact does not deserve a T...IOW you've decided that the defender has not violated that rule.

By rule the only choice left is a no-call.

I think the problem is that the defender definitely did violate the rule, but the penalty for the violation is too severe.

So you can do nothing, or you can give a lesser penalty.

If you're gonna issue a penalty for a rule that has been violated, I think you have to go with what the book says. I have a real problem with guys that think their smarter then the book. I also have a real problem with making a call that has no rulebook support for it. If you're gonna call it, then call it the way the book says to. Otherwise, I think you have to no-call it.

Jurassic Referee · #13 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 05, 2005, 12:27pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Whistles & Stripes

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
But you've already decided in your judgement the non-contact does not deserve a T...IOW you've decided that the defender has not violated that rule.

By rule the only choice left is a no-call.

I think the problem is that the defender definitely did violate the rule, but the penalty for the violation is too severe.

So you can do nothing, or you can give a lesser penalty.

If you're gonna issue a penalty for a rule that has been violated, I think you have to go with what the book says. I have a real problem with guys that think their smarter then the book. I also have a real problem with making a call that has no rulebook support for it. If you're gonna call it, then call it the way the book says to. Otherwise, I think you have to no-call it.

I'm with Dan.

Call the "T". Or ignore it. Or ignore it and mention it to the defender and/or his coach when you get a chance. Your choice.

You don't call a personal foul without physical contact however. Never call anything that you can't explain.

ChuckElias · #14 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 05, 2005, 12:34pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Never call anything that you can't explain.

Coach: Didn't look there was any contact there at all!
Ref: Of course there was, Coach. Otherwise, how'd your guy get knocked to the ground?

Jurassic Referee · #15 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 05, 2005, 12:36pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Never call anything that you can't explain.

Coach: Didn't look there was any contact there at all!
Ref: Of course there was, Coach. Otherwise, how'd your guy get knocked to the ground?

Never call anything that you cant explain without lying.