NCAA Block/Charge Definition

[All_Heart]

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.

[All_Heart]

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

[Texas Aggie]

Stupid rule.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Stupid rule.

Why? Just because you don't like it?

[tmp44]

Originally Posted by All_Heart

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

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?

[Texas Aggie]

Just because you don't like it?

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

No, its because there's no coherent rationale for declaring a small portion of the court as a "charge-free" zone.

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

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

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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.

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.

[All_Heart]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

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 $$$).

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

I also don't really like the 5 second closely guarded rule while dribbling.

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?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by All_Heart

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.

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.