NCAA Block/Charge Definition

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

And MTD, Sr. - what in the hell difference does it make that Barb Jacobs never refereed??? She was just a coach??? So only referees should have any input on the rules? Someone who has devoted their life to knowing and understanding the game has no business giving input on rules? That's a ridiculous position to take.

Pretty much everyone on the rules committees are current coaches at the NCAA level. I agree that you do not have to be an official, but I think many of the rules that these committees come up with are not made by people that have to enforce the rules. When I say this about the NF, someone always comes up with the only guy or couple of people that happen to be officials. The majority of the people on these committees are not officials (I do not think any officials sit on the NCAA committees other than the director of officials).

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Getting in a player's path under the basket such that is will cause them to alter their course is no more easy than getting in their path 5 feet in front of the basket for a similar effect. The shooter has every chance to pull up for a short jumper (unguarded) or even still take a layup if there is a defender waiting under the basket. No defender blocks that much area (unless they defender is an NFL offensive lineman).

Ok, I'm in no posistion to know how Barb Jacob's mind works.

I don't entirely disagree with you. But, I think I kinda get what they're after with this rule. First of all, it's not called that often that I'm aware; in fact, I only remember it coming into play 2 or 3 times in the last couple of seasons. But I'm not going out too far on the limb to say they want basketball to stay in it's purest form, and there are other examples over time how this has come into play with rule changes. That's why I mentioned goaltending - as players got taller, the rulesmakers decided that's not how they envisioned the game. So they enacted a rule that kept players from just taking the easy way out while the only thing they're doing is standing there swatting away balls as they came towards the basket. I believe this was their thinking, as well as the added safety factor, on a player just setting up underneath the basket. They felt the player is not playing "legitimate" defense by just taking that spot on the floor and waiting for the offensive player to crash into them after the shot without any other possible legitimate defensive moves, such as attempting to block the shot, preventing a pass, etc. Those defensive moves, as well as taking the charge, could be done at any other spot on the floor, and even on this same spot if the drive comes along the baseline. But, if all they do is get to that spot and wait while there's a drive for a layup, the only thing they can do is accept contact. Do you see the difference?

Now, I can't resist this shot at MTD:
Mark, are you saying Barb can never be a good rules interpreter because she was never an official? So, a person can never be good at a job if they've never done it before? That's not very liberal-minded of you...

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, I'm in no posistion to know how Barb Jacob's mind works.

I don't entirely disagree with you. But, I think I kinda get what they're after with this rule. First of all, it's not called that often that I'm aware; in fact, I only remember it coming into play 2 or 3 times in the last couple of seasons. But I'm not going out too far on the limb to say they want basketball to stay in it's purest form, and there are other examples over time how this has come into play with rule changes. That's why I mentioned goaltending - as players got taller, the rulesmakers decided that's not how they envisioned the game. So they enacted a rule that kept players from just taking the easy way out while the only thing they're doing is standing there swatting away balls as they came towards the basket. I believe this was their thinking, as well as the added safety factor, on a player just setting up underneath the basket. They felt the player is not playing "legitimate" defense by just taking that spot on the floor and waiting for the offensive player to crash into them after the shot without any other possible legitimate defensive moves, such as attempting to block the shot, preventing a pass, etc. Those defensive moves, as well as taking the charge, could be done at any other spot on the floor, and even on this same spot if the drive comes along the baseline. But, if all they do is get to that spot and wait while there's a drive for a layup, the only thing they can do is accept contact. Do you see the difference?

Now, I can't resist this shot at MTD:
Mark, are you saying Barb can never be a good rules interpreter because she was never an official? So, a person can never be good at a job if they've never done it before? That's not very liberal-minded of you...

Hey, you just repeated everything I said in my last post...but you said it better (grumble, grumble)

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Hey, you just repeated everything I said in my last post...but you said it better (grumble, grumble)

Oh, yea? Well you said everything I said, only quicker and shorter (grumble, grumble)

I would've gotten my post in quicker, except I was working on my health.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I would've gotten my post in quicker, except I was working on my health.

Try not to go blind while you're doing so......

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Oh, yea? Well you said everything I said, only quicker and shorter (grumble, grumble)

I would've gotten my post in quicker, except I was working on my health.

I'm still feeling pretty good...might have to go back for a little "check-up" later, tho!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

As stated before, the ONLY reason for setting up under the basket is to try and cause a collision... it's not trying to alter the shot, it's not hustle, it's simply trying to cause a collision. The NCAAW mindset is that it is not good defense, and that's the way it is to be called at those levels. Don't like it, don't try to officiate those games...

That is not the ONLY reason. The resaon is to force the shooter to make a choice. Stop or change directions to shoot a different shot or risk getting called for a charge. One option is the collision but the other options are leaving less desireable shots for the shooter.

The final choice is made by the offense when they see the defender in their path. The offense is the one causing the collision by not altering course once their path has been occupied.

The fact that it occurs under the basket should not be any different than doing so at the FT line. Why not extend the range to which it applies to cover the entire FT lane? If a player makes a running jumpshot from outside the lane and crashes into a defender in the lane after releasing the ball, how is that any different? The defender sees that the opponent was going to shoot a jumper and just waited for him to crash into him. Why is that different?


If my schedule were to such that I could work college games (and get picked up by a college assignor), I'd call it as specified. I need not agree with a rule philosopically in order to enforce it as defined.