NCAA Block/Charge Definition
 

This is from the NCAA Rule book pg 67

A.R. 7. (Women) B1 is standing directly under (a) the cylinder or (b) the backboard before A1 jumps for a layup. The forward momentum of airborne shooter A1 causes A1 to run into B1.

RULING: In both (a) and (b), B1 is not in a legal guarding position. Blocking foul on B1.

Could someone explain why this is a block? Where in the book (besides here) does it say that B1 is not in legal guarding position because she is under the basket? It says that this is a charge for Mens.

Here is the mens:

A.R. 6. (Men) B1 is standing under the basket before A1 jumps for a layup. The forward momentum of A1 causes contact with B1.

RULING: B1 is entitled to the position provided that there was no movement into such position by B1 after A1 leaped from the floor. When the ball goes through the basket before the contact occurs, the contact shall be ignored unless B1 has been placed at a disadvantage by being unable to rebound when the shot is missed or unable to put the ball in play without delay, when the try is successful. When the contact occurs before the ball becomes dead, a charging foul has been committed by A1. When B1 moves into the path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul shall be on B1. It shall be an intentional foul when a player moves into the path of an airborne opponent with the intent to undercut and contact results. When the moving player moves under the airborne opponent and there is danger of severe injury as a result of the contact, it shall be a flagrant personal foul on the moving player.

Found it:

Apendix III Section 12b (Women’s) Legal Defense

The defender is entitled to any spot on the playing court she
desires, provided that she gets to that spot first, without contact
with an opponent. A defender who establishes a position directly
under the cylinder or behind the backboard when a dribbler
becomes an airborne shooter is not in a legal guarding position,
regardless if she got to the spot first. If contact occurs, the official
must decide whether the contact is incidental or a foul has
been committed by the defender. Exception: When a dribbler
takes a path to the basket parallel with the end line, the defender’s
position directly under the cylinder or behind the backboard
is a legal guarding position and, if contact occurs, the
official must decide whether the contact is incidental or a foul
has been committed by the dribbler or airborne shooter

Stupid rule.

Why? Just because you don't like it?:rolleyes:

It seems that the women's game and the NBA game are becoming more and more alike all the time, both mechanics and rule wise. As I read this, it appears to be identical to the arc rule in the NBA, just without the marking on the floor...is that correct?

No, its because there's no coherent rationale for declaring a small portion of the court as a "charge-free" zone. There is significant play under the basket or backboard where this rule gives the offensive player a totally unfair advantage. Why should the offense have this advantage by rule? The rule, which I'm not sure is spelled out in the actual set of rules (is is?), talks about a "dribbler" which is undefined. Take a play where a dribbler goes airborne and runs into a defender, you have either a no call or a block, even if the defender was in an otherwise legal guarding position. Take the exact same play where the offensive player received a pass and went up. Do we have a charge now because she wasn't a "dribbler?" If so, how do you know?

Not liking a rule doesn't mean I think its stupid. I don't like the NFHS rule requiring free throw lane folks to stay put until the ball hits the rim/backboard. I also don't really like the 5 second closely guarded rule while dribbling. I can also give you a few others, but I don't think these rules are stupid. The above one is.

Because you say there is not a coherent rational makes it so? :rolleyes:

The rule is there because someone felt it was necessary. Some people do not feel you are playing defense at that position. You do not have to agree with it, but the last time I checked no one asked you or me why a rule should be in place or not be in place.

Peace

We've had this discussion on this board before (many times), and the biggest problem is that most people who don't work NCAAW ruleset don't understand what the rule actually is saying...it DOES NOT give the dribbler the right to run over the defender under the basket. If the defender has established legal guarding position and is moving with the dribbler (maintaining legal guarding position) they have every right to keep that position. The rule DOES mean that a secondary defender can not set up and take a charge under the basket unless the drive is parallel to the baseline (as in going for a reverse lay-in). The rationale has always been that taking up defensive position directly under the basket is a non-basketball play and serves only to lead to injuries - get out of there and play some good defense.

And I'm not sure why you are confused by the "dribbler" part...if the person is dribblling the ball, they are a dribbler. If they are catching a pass and turning to shoot, they aren't dribbling, are they? The rule applies to drives to the basket and secondary defenders stepping in to draw a charge under the basket.

I don't see anywhere that this only applies to secondary defenders. That is the NBA rule.

Also this rule says "directly under", which IMO leaves alot of grey area. This is why the NBA has the restricted area marked with a line.

I neither know nor care what the NBA rule is...I am telling you what the correct interpretation and application of the NCAAW rule is for a defender under the basket...just like in NFHS, we get rules and then interpretations of the rule (called case book plays in HS) which tell us exactly how to call the rule...

And why would directly under the basket cause any more confusion than the use of the word "dribbler"...how can there be gray area - are you under the basket or behind the backboard? Then it's either a no-call or a block...pretty simple.

Could you post the interpretation? I'm just trying to learn this rule in order to call this properly.

Not sure where you are going to find a direct interpretation. A lot of interpretations for NCAA rules are no directly in the rulebook (also remember the NCAA does not have a casebook). A lot of NCAA interpretations are on their tapes and video bulletins and talked about in detail at the NCAA Meetings. I can tell you from what I have seen Rocky's interpretation is pretty much on target. Also a lot of what you do is following the philosophies of assignors as to what to call and why.

Peace

Frankly, that's an absurd view. If you are not playing defense, then it stands to reason that it would be easy for the offensive player to avoid contact, which would mean there's no reason for the rule.

Why would you not be playing defense when you are "directly" under the basket, but you are playing defense when you are inches away from being directly under the basket?

Can you support that with a rules citation? I'm not trying to be picky here. If you look up the word, "intentional" in websters and compare it to how an intentional foul is defined, you will see different meanings. Besides, this doesn't square with the scenario I posted: it makes no sense to give protection to a dribbler becoming an airborne shooter, but not to give the same protection to a player receiving a pass who then becomes an airborne shooter.

If you like the rule, fine. But I think its stupid.

It is a game, relax. All games have rules because someone felt there was a need for that rule. Now if you feel it is not a good rule, do not call the game that way or do not work that level. Then you will not have to worry about "why" the rule is the way it is. ;)

One of the problems with the NCAA there is no casebook. So I cannot give you a specific rule reference. Even in NF the current rule is "interpreted" in the casebook and other NF literature. Also remember this is also a NCAA Women's rule and that is how they want it called. The reality is that is the way it is expected to be called on the Men's side as well, they just have not come out and put in black and white. Once again the issue is not what you or I think the rule is there for a good reason. They felt in necessary to form the rule to their specifications, not what you think it is. They are also not the NF either.

Peace

Try going to www.eofficals.com, work your way thru NCAA, Women's Basketball, and look through the archives...it will be in there somewhere under the Officiating Memo's or Officiating Program...that's about all I can tell you.

And as for Aggie not liking the rule and thinking it's stupid - ok. But to pick at it because you can't figure out what a "dribbler" is...well, that's not very intelligent either.

I don't think it's necessarily a stupid interpretation. What I do think is stupid is the fact that it's only an interpretation. I think that if the the women's game (or the men eventually) want the play called this way, they should put down a semi-circle to define exactly where "under the basket" is. Yes, it looks more NBA-ish, but at least it removes the guesswork for the officials. Put in a "Restricted Area" rule in the definitions and the markings on the floor and make it consistent. JMO

Thanks for the link although it needs one more i in www.eofficials.com

Oops...did it help? (with the extra i, that is)

DJ, I found the interpretation of this play in the Officiating program manual on the NCAA site. However, it says the exact same thing that all heart posted in his second post in this thread. It's word for word. and it doesn't say anything about a secondary defender. So I'm confused by that as well.

All I can say is that from the first day that this rule came out, we were told (over and over again) the exact interpretation I have given...I know that there were several of the Memos from the NCAA that explained it all. That's why I sent All Heart to the archives at eofficials.com (maybe the NCAA has an archive of memos at their site also?).

Usually, in my experience, it's a secondary defender that will move over and camp out directly under the basket. The primary defender is usually moving with the offensive player. I don't remember if there's a strict interpretation on secondary vs. primary defenders, but it's usually the secondary defender that comes over to help that's doing the camping.

I'm not sure it's been mentioned yet, but the reasoning behind this is due to the fact the defender chooses that spot not for playing defense, because there is no chance to block a shot from under the basket, but rather for the sole purpose of drawing contact from the driving offensive player after the shot. The NCAA-W committee felt this was an uneccessary play from a possible injury standpoint. Also, a point that was made earlier was this only applies to "north-south" drives to the basket, iow, a drive down the lane from, say, outside the free throw line. If the drive originates from the corner and moves along the baseline, this rule does not apply because the defensive player still could be defending a pass into the opposite corner, or the offensive player could continue to drive along the baseline under the basket, so the defender is actually playing some other kind of defense other than just standing there to take contact.

Yea, I know, drawing charges is also playing defense. I don't know if I explained it very well, but the committee is just trying to get rid of any uneccessary contact. It's not one of my favorite rules, but I (kinda) understand why it's there. As far as it being stupid, I can think of other rules that are further up the stupid ladder than this one (matching color headbands?...). But, if I'm going to call that game, I guess I'm going to enforce all the rules of that game, whether or not I think they're stupid.

I checked out the archive and there was nothing in it. If you think of another place they might be let me know.

As I've asked many times....how is taking a spot that forces the opponent to stop, change directions, or take a less desireable shot not good defense? Great defense is when a defender gets in a spot that the opponent would like to go through but can't because it's taken. It's the purest of basketball plays. The NBA and NCAAW way is a manipulation of the fundamentals of the game in order to increase scoring for the sake of entertainment (read $$$).

Why isn't being tall and just standing with your hand over the top of the basket allowed? Isn't blocking a shot one of those "pure basketball plays"? Or did the rulesmakers change the rules to allow for taller people to play without it being "easier" for them - they still have to dribble, pass, and shoot without being to just stand under the basket and swat shots away.

My guess is the committee is trying to keep defenders from taking the "easy" way out by just standing in a spot that just takes away layups, rather than playing defense. Sure, it's a fine line between the two. But, remember, that's why they made the distinction between someone standing in that spot on "north-south" drives vs. "east-west" drives along the baseline.

Are you saying you would be in favor of allowing a player under NFHS rules to dribble for 8 straight minutes, even if he or she was closely guarded? :confused:

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).

Excellent post.

Camron,
I agree with you 100%. Personally, I hope that the NFHS never changes its rule.

Why? You ask.

Because Barb Jacobs does not have a clue as to what is in the rules book. I am not about to climb up into the attic do research the exact year, Barb Jacobs originally made this intepretations mid-year and then had the rules book changed the next year to comply with her interpretation. This was done in the late 1990's. All I am going to say for now is that when she made her interpretation, many, many women's college officials could not believe that she would make such an interpretation because it was in direct contridiction of the rules. One also must remember that Barb Jacobs had never officiated a basketball game in her life. She is a former college basketball coach.

MTD, Sr.

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...

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

Ok, I'm in <B>no</B> posistion to know how Barb Jacob's mind works. :eek:

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 <B>only</B> 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):mad:

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

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

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

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

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.