![]() |
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
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? Quote:
If you like the rule, fine. But I think its stupid. |
Quote:
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
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
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I agree with you 100%. Personally, I hope that the NFHS never changes its rule. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
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... ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I would've gotten my post in quicker, except I was working on my health. :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:29pm. |