charge or not

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

What if there was absolutely nowhere else for the defender to go as the other places on the floor around the player he seeks to guard are taken and he doesn't wish to foul the player? Maybe the offensive player will drive the baseline under the basket looking for an outlet shooter.

You can't make a blanket statement about this. Usually, they are underneath the basket because that's the quickest place they can get to and be in a legal guarding position. How is that bad defense?

The NBA rule is stupid and designed to give the offensive player added protection that neither the NCAA nor Fed codes generally allow. They do it because the NBA is a show, not a competition.

Frankly, I think it's likely to be a block a heckuva lot more often than if the defender is actively playing defense in front of the basket.

Why? Not because I advocate ignoring the rule. It's because it's much more likely that the defender hasn't established LGP before A1 became an airborne shooter. It's a long time between A1 leaving the floor and subsequently hitting B1 positioned under the basket on a typical layup.

BTW, I don't think it's a stupid semicircle, either -- if the only way one can defend against a layup is to position himself in A1's landing spot, he ought to cede the bucket, IMO -- but that's not relevant as I can't imagine working a game under those explicit conditions any time soon.

[JRutledge]

The bottom line for me is there is a reality to what we call to what the rule says. As long as you are consistent, that is all the counts. We can debate what the rule says or what the rule does not say. I will say I have yet to see a player stand behind the basket and be in complete LGP. So a player that is behind the basket to me is suspect. I just cannot say that there is a one size fits all.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

BTW, I don't think it's a stupid semicircle, either -- if the only way one can defend against a layup is to position himself in A1's landing spot, he ought to cede the bucket, IMO -- but that's not relevant as I can't imagine working a game under those explicit conditions any time soon.

So, with that philosophy, you don't think B1 should be able to take a charge on A1's running jumpshot around the FT line if A1 pancakes B1 well after the release and just before A1 lands?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

So, with that philosophy, you don't think B1 should be able to take a charge on A1's running jumpshot around the FT line if A1 pancakes B1 well after the release and just before A1 lands?

Landing spot behind the basket is what I meant. You can't defend a shot from there.

But your example is one spot where the NCAAM rule is great. The bucket counts, call the foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Landing spot behind the basket is what I meant. You can't defend a shot from there.

But your example is one spot where the NCAAM rule is great. The bucket counts, call the foul.

If you can take away a shooter's desired path needed to complete the shot, how is it not defending the shot?

So if the NCAAM's idea is great, why not use it under the basket too.

[Ref in PA]

I had this exact play last night. NCAAM JV game. A1 drove the base line and B1 was set up, not exactly under the basket but close enough. A1 ran B1 over and I called the charge. Coach A did not like the call, but it did not change my mind. The offensive player needs to recognize the positioning of the defenders and adjust accordingly.

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

I had this exact play last night. NCAAM JV game. A1 drove the base line and B1 was set up, not exactly under the basket but close enough. A1 ran B1 over and I called the charge. Coach A did not like the call, but it did not change my mind. The offensive player needs to recognize the positioning of the defenders and adjust accordingly.

Funny you say this because I had it last night as well in JV boys game (NCAA rules). In my case the defender moved under the basket after A1 took off for the layup. B1 realized he was not there in time and backed up to give the player room to land, as he landed B1 had some contact with A1 and IMO flopped back on his butt. I had NO CALL on the play as A1 was able to complete his layup and B took himself out of the play. No advantage/disadvantage was my judgement.

[btaylor64]

It is like JRut said. There is no one size fits all. We all need to understand that officiating is not an exact science, but instead it is an art, and depending on whether your art is beautiful or not is in the eye of the assignor you work for.

I personally call a block or no call a play when a secondary defender comes in and attempts to take a charge underneath the basket. If it is a primary defender then I just see the play through. Just to add something to this. I will call an offensive foul on an offensive player being defended by a secondary defender if the offensive player does something overt (i.e., leading with the foot or wiping out with the off hand, etc.)

People who are rule book officials are trying to make this a science and hence we would just be better off having robots referee the game. As an art there is room for human understanding and conception.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

But your example is one spot where the NCAAM rule is great. The bucket counts, call the foul.

And that used to be HS rule too, but I am told that it was changed because it was not being officiated properly. Too many officials were failing to correctly judge whether or not the ball had left the shooter's hand when the contact occurred. Thus the NFHS made it simple. They could have said that the shot always counts, but they elected to go with it never counts on a PC.