charge or not
 

does high school have a area under the basket where a charge is not called. guy going for layup and defender is under basket. Is there a line like the n.b.a. where he has to be positioned?

No.

Peace

NO, Little of what you see in the NBA on TV has any correlation to High School ball.

^ except the coaches attitude :)

what should the call be
 

a guy dribbles to the hole.leaves his feet to make a layup, yet there is a defender standing there..i know if you say there is no line than there is a charge if he is set, yet i know momentum on a fast dribble and leaving your feet to lay it in can be only natural...

i generally dont reward bad defense -- and just standing under the basket/backboard isnt good defense IMO -- usually no call from the instances I have seen this.

What's your point?

So you ignore the rule...brilliant.

Again I am new, but from what I have read so far, this would be a charge if the defense was in position prior to the layup; a shooting foul if the defense jumped in front of the Offesenive player. Right? Arent we suppose to call everything, regardless? The rules make the game even for both teams....

There is a rule and there is a reality. The reality is there are officials that use this as a guide to help them make a call. I personally do not care what people do as long as they are consistent. This in my opinion is no different than having a philosophy behind how we call any rules to make a judgment. After all, these are judgment calls.

Peace

i agree JRut -- not that I have not called PC fouls under the basket -- i just dont reward bad defense

Fair enough. But to call it bad defense seems crazy. In my opinion it is good defense. The call went against A1 for charging, no points and your ball. If you dont call the foul, A1 probably makes the basket if it is an easy layup. AT the same time, if B1 fouls then it becomes an extra point situation for A1 thanks to enforcing the rules. Thus making it fair, IMO, but I agree they are judgement calls and in an instant.

So standing in a place that prevents the normal layup is bad defense? Forcing a jump shot is bad defense? Taking away the layup is good defense. You can take away a lay up by standing under the basket. Therefore, standing under the basket can be good defense.

If the defender has LGP and the offense drills him, do your job and call it.

I wouldn't call this a charge.
I agree in the people saying that this is bad defense. I don't see standing under the ring being a good defense. And I don't think we should award players who doesn't play proper defense.
I also know that FIBA tried the nba restricted circle rule a few years ago. But it was removed, I'm not sure why (it was Alan Richardson who said this during a clinic I went too). The comment I got was "Europe wasn't ready for it but it was a really good rule".
My point is that I dont' belive standing under the ring waiting for a player to fall into you is good defense. And I don't belive in awarding players who do this. The only thing I belive I would call is an unsportsmanlike if that is warranted. Otherwise I belive in this to be a no call. And many fiba referees today (at least around here) think and do the same.

iirc, even in the NBA this is a charge unless the person is a secondary defender.

You asked the same question yesterday! Did you not care for those answers?

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=31646

And yet again I post this for our youthful fellow deecee. Perhaps one of these times he will absorb it, but until then he will carry on doing it his way.

NFHS 2006-07 Points of Emphasis

#5. Rules Enforcement and Proper Use of Signals. The committee has seen a movement away from the consistent application of rule enforcement and use of approved mechanics/signals.
A. Rules Enforcement. Officials need to be aware that personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risks to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as written negatively impact the basic fundamentals and tenants of the rules.


10.6.1 SITUATION C: B1 is standing behind the plane of the backboard before A1 jumps for a lay-up shot. The forward momentum causes airborne shooter A1 to charge into B1. RULING: B1 is entitled to the position obtained legally before A1 left the floor. If the ball goes through the basket before or after the contact occurs, the player-control foul cancels the goal. However, if B1 moves into the path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1. B1's foul on the airborne shooter is a foul during the act of shooting. If the shot is successful, one free throw is awarded and if it is unsuccessful, two free throws result. (4-19-1, 6; 6-7-4; 10 Penalty 2, 5a)

ok go ahead and call it -- i am not saying not to call it -- when i played i never expected that call and when i coached i never wanted that call. but again thank you for typing out the rulebook I will have to go back to high schooland berate my english teacher for not teaching me how to read text in red and blue that is bold.

from what i read in the rulebook and what i see as far as contact blah -- contact blah -- contact blach differs so please spare me the mumbo jumbo of all contact is blah -- because in application and reality the 2 might not match up -- but I do like how you have learned to read and type in the rulebook -- its a great skill that I need as I am looking for a personal assistant and your skill set of reading and typing and even correcting grammar will be perfect. Of course the pay isnt that great and the hours are kinda long 8hrs. a day but hey you get weekends off and most importantly you get to read and type -- 2 things I have learned that you love to do.

No call if the shooter knocks the defender inti the third row?

Did it ever cross your mind that if you do make that call you're rewarding <b>good</b> defense and penalizing a <b>bad</b> decision by the shooter?

wow 3rd row from the endline -- either the shooter was shaq charging into a freshman girl or we are getting a bit WOW -- but should the contact BE THAT severe I will call the foul and then proceed to call an ambulance -- and yes a layup is always a BAD decision by a shooter.

I only stated what I would do in this instance and I will not lose any sleep if someone says they will do the opposite. But I like that 3rd row knock back -- can I offer some what ifs as well -- what if the shooter never intened to shoot but just decleate the defender (POW!!!!) -- or what if a blue duck flies in and steals my partners whistle and blows out of his primary and calls this PC and I actually blow the whilstle and we have a blarge. Do i defer to the duck? strange? yes. bizarre? yes? -- 3rd row knockback during a BAD layup just as strange and bizarre IMO.

I get it. You don't call fouls because they actually are fouls. You only call fouls if you personally feel the severity of the contact actually warrants a foul call.

Soooooo......
1) if the defender gets knocked into the <b>second</b> row, would you call a foul?
2) if the defender gets knocked into the <b>first</b> row, would you call a foul?
3) if the defender gets knocked down but lands short of the stands, would you call a foul?
4) if the shooter gives the defender a double eye-poke like Moe used to do to Curley, is that a foul?

Yup speaking of "bizarre", I was just wondering how you apply that "severity of contact" philosophy of yours in game situations.....

so all contact is a foul jr? its a judgement call and in MY judgement this contact where players are flying into the first/second/third row is NOT going to happen.

4) only if the defender responds with a "yuck, yuck, yuck"

Why is that question such a big deal, really? There is a philosophy (HS as I understood it) that a player control foul should be called regardless of the position of the defender ... So, if that's what the governing body in that league wants, go ahead and call it that way. But there are other philosophies in other leagues, and maybe it is worth to think about them for a moment. Just think about it and the ideas behind it, don't use it if your league wants you to do otherwise!

As crazyvoyager said, in FIBA's world the rules don't offer a semi circle or anything like it to protect the shooter. but the prevailing philosophy is that defense should be played in front of the basket, not underneath it or even behind the backboard. This is probably because we'd like to see more baskets scored instead of referees waving them off because of player control fouls ... By the way, a charging after the shot (ball left the hand) wouldn't be a player control foul over here, and the basket would count even though a foul has been called on the shooter. Is that really different in HS, that it is still a PC foul, when the ball has already left the shooters hand? Oh, and one more thing regarding this philosophy ... we mix some advantage/disadvantage into it as well. If the shooter charges into the defender, who is planted underneath the basket, and he misses the layup it must be called as a foul by the offensive player! Why? Because he knocks the defender out of the picture for the ensuing rebound situation, and that would be a clear disadvantage. What are your thoughts on this? And before you ask, yes I like it. If you apply that rule consistently it creates a nicely flowing game, with charging calls where needed and baskets where defense just tries to play for a charge without trying to defend the basket. An occasional late call because of a missed shot with a charge ... I love it :D

From Kostja: "There is a philosophy (HS as I understood it) that a player control foul should be called regardless of the position of the defender"

Kostja: You understand it wrong. The defender cannot be out of bounds. This rule change was made a few years ago. Of course this change goes along with all the other rules regarding legal guarding postion.

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.

Thanks for the clarification. I never even thought about someone "playing defense" out of bounds :D To me this looks just as weird as playing defense behind the backboard oder underneath the basket ;)

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.

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

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?

It would take a lot more than eight hours per day to bring your lousy writing skills up to par. :p

OOB Defense
 

From Kostja: "I never even thought about someone "playing defense" out of bounds"

In the last century, when I was in high school, my coach would teach us to play defense along the sideline with one foot touching the boundary line, especially in a trapping situation with a teammate coming in from the center of the court to set up a two-man trap. This was to insure that the offensive player didn't even have an inch to dribble by us along the sideline. In the past, I could set up with a foot on the boundary line and legally "take a charge". Not anymore. The rule changed a few years ago so that in order to have "legal guarding postion", the defender has to have both feet completely in bounds.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1) I personally believe that is absolutely terrible advice unless you're working in the NBA or doing a NCAA Womens college game. And believe me, Mr. Taylor is <b>not</b> working in the NBA and I doubt very much that he's doing Womens college games either, seeing that he had never officiated a high school game at any level in his life before this season started. What he is advocating goes not only goes completely against the direction of both the NFHS and NCAA Mens rule books, but it also goes against the way that supervisors and evaluators want the play called.

2) What gives you the right to make statements like that? You don't have the officiating experience to judge <b>anybody</b>, let alone judge experienced high school and college officials. All you're doing is trying to regurgitate something that you heard at one of your Jr. NBA/rec league games. That's nothing but rec league, Old School talk. Rule book officials are officials that know the rules. Well, you've certainly proved with your previous posts that you're <b>not</b> a rulebook official. If you would like to contest that, I'll be glad to go back and re-post some of your greatest hits.

You're exactly right JR, I am not a rule book ref nor do I hope and have aspirations of being one. Now do I not know the rules? No. I know them quite well. I am a true believer in having rules knowledge, but there is a difference in knowing the rules and knowing what they are and the purpose that they are there to serve.

Jurassic, don't act like you know what I do, where I've been or what I have done. You know maybe a quarter of what I've done or where I've been. I don't attack you, do I? I don't expect you to attack me. All the advice that I give on here has been given to me by the highest ranking officials in the game today, so if there are people on here who want to move up to the college or higher level, they should probably heed this as being pretty dang true. I'll tell you right now I could name two different HS assingors who would want this play called different ways. One would want the block under the basket and the other would want the offensive foul. It just depends on who the assignor is and where they are coming from. The first assignor I mentioned is a D1 official and the other has worked HS all his life. That is the difference and that is ok, I understand where both are coming from.

What JR, did #2 sound too good that it couldn't have come out of a 20 something yr. olds mouth? As stupid and "regurgitated" as it sounds these are the truths of the game today and if people want to work higher level ball then they will understand and adapt. I've had to because of some of things, such as this play.

Yup, especially a 20 something yr. old that had never done high school game at any level in his life before this year. And as for that working college nonsense, you don't know enough about NCAA rules or mechanics to work at that level.

http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...877#post334877

Methinks that maybe doing some rec league games and going to a camp really doesn't make you the expert that you try to portray.

Once again, you have no idea what I have done or where I have been. I did HS games before, and a ton of them at that, but I had just never reffed a regular season one until this year.

Look, I don't have a dog in this fight but I can't help but wonder what this means.

It means he's another rec league warrior. We've gone through this before with him. He thinks that if you do college-age players in a summer league, you're a college official. Kinda like a young Old School. He's now a first year high-school official, and he still hasn't posted whether his first year also includes his first real, live high school varsity game either.

As you saw above, he keeps insisting that NBA rules should be used in NFHS/NCAA situations, as exemplified by their block/charge rule under the basket. Saying not to call charges on secondary defenders under the basket is just typical of his posts. Of course, he also insists among other things that whacking the board but not touching the ball or basket while doing so is BI. Maybe I shouldn't get ticked off so much, but his nonsense doesn't help the education of new officials reading this forum.

Hey - I am an educator of the arts (music) and my administrators are always taking $$$$ from me to give to weight rooms and athletics. When did BB become an art? I wanna know so I can hit up my administration for more $$$$$. :-)

I agree JR. Please stick to answers that are backed by legitimate rules and not hear say on the courts. This is tough enough without adding confusion.
Thanks

I'll take the high road and just say that you can believe what you want to believe. If you want to believe that I am a "rec league warrior" that is fine. I appreciate you trying to discredit me. There are less than a handful of people on this forum who have seen me work, and you are not one of them, so I ask kindly please don't attempt to discredit me if you haven't seen me work or if you don't know about my rules knowledge. Do I follow the rules to a perfect T. No, I don't and posts on the forum show that. Does that make me a horrible referee. In your eyes and others, maybe, but not in the eyes of the people I work for and work with.

Well, that tells me a lot about your association's standards. If they think it's OK for their officials to apply NBA rules and philosophies to high school games instead of teaching you the proper and appropriate rules, mechanics, etc. to use, then you're probably in the right place. Hey, use or make up whatever rules and mechanics that you want to. I could care less, and apparently your association could care less too. When you recommend that other officials should follow your lead though, well, I'm guess that I'm just gonna have to differ with you.

Thus the reason the rules committee felt the need to make this a POE this year, as stated in another Thread by I think Nevada...

Once again, there is a real world and there is the rulebook. Not all things are defined clearly by the rulebook. If you actually read the rulebook, the rulebook actually talks about the "Spirit of the Rule." If you ask me the NF double talks on many levels. If there is a rule they think is not being applied by the letter, then they need to make it a POE. Just saying "do not do this or else" without any description is rather silly if you ask me. Once again, the NF does not hire officials, hire assignors or give post season games. If they want to start doing that, then and only then can they get on talk about what officials should or should not realistically do. The very people that want to talk about how to apply this rule by the letter are some of the very people that if we were to switch this conversation to another rule, they would use a personal or widely used application of that rule.

Peace

Isn't that the reason they created the Case Book? To actually provide situations that indicate the "intent" of the rule? Thus allowing officials to apply those cases to others that, although may not be exact to the letter, but are similar in intent of the rule... IMO officials should not waiver from the fundamentals of the rules. I do not believe you will see every violation; but to not apply a rule because you dont agree with it or dont feel it was really that bad this time seems unthinkable to me. Perhaps my thoughts will change as I learn and see more. I do realize many of the violations are judgement calls.

Do you think that it's OK in the "real world" to apply the NBA/NCAA Womens block/charge rule with the circle and secondary defender etc. to games played under NFHS rules? Do you think that it's OK in a high school game to call a block on a defender with LGP because that defender is standing under the basket? If you like the NBA rules better, then feel free to use 'em in your high school games too, just like Btaylor.

If you go back and read a few posts, you'll find that it's got nothing at all to do with an official applying any rule by the letter. It's about an official ignoring the rules <b>completely</b> and trying to apply his very own rules and philosophies to situations where they aren't relevant or appropriate at all.

You keep talking about what is OK as if that means something. What is OK is not the issue from my point of view. It does not even enter the equation. I am not just a HS official and I have had to do things I do not feel it "OK" in order to keep my job.

That is your interpretation of the situation and that is your right to feel that way. But once again we all make decisions in the real world based on something we were instructed to do. You are not the only assignor in the country and most of us do not work for you. You have a philosophy which I completely understand, but it is not what everyone has to work under. You might like that reality, but after all this is a reality. Once again, what is the punishment from the NF if a particular official does not follow a rule to the letter? Absolutely nothing, just like what is going to happen by having this conversation. I like the passion, but that does not mean you are right. ;)

Peace

I understand your point. I've already said that if if Btaylor's association thinks that he's doing the right thing and they don't have a problem with it, which they obviously don't, then they can both knock themselves out. I could care less. They're not advocating bending the rules; they're advocating ignoring them completely and using their own rules. Imo, that's terrible advice for officials outside their association. That's my point.

True indeed. However, there are some that will, when the rule is completely unabmiguous in both the letter and the spirit, still chose to not adhere to it.

I would agree with this as well. ;)

Peace

This is what I was pretty much trying to say. I am not advocating using strictly NBA rules for college and HS games, but I do say this knowing that I have been told this by D1 officials themselves is that a defender under the basket is doing nothing more than trying to draw a cheap offensive foul. What I mean by under the basket, and what I picture it in my mind is almost directly under the backboard (maybe a little further out), not at the part of the rim that is farthest from the backboard. That doesn't seem like a big difference, but to me. To me it is the difference in a block and an offensive foul.

Also like JRut said, I am just doing what I have been taught and was also told if I do it this way then I will get to where I want to be, and to me that sounds like the thing to do.

And as JR said, if you're calling a block on a defender with LGP in games played under NFHS rules, and your association is teaching that, then I guess that it isn't really your fault that you belong to one piss-poor association. Teaching a new official to <b>deliberately</b> ignore a plainly written rule is just plain ridiculous. Sad.

By proper rules application you have a charge.

In real world application, you may have a no-call.

In no reality, without a half circle, you never have a block.

So you're saying I can't even have a no call on this? I can't deem this incidental contact after the shot was already released? I guess all people who no call plays in block charge situations are blatantly ignoring the rule, because you have to have something. Either he was there or he wasn't. Right? And I guarantee you that my association would get more plays right then yours ever dream of getting right. This sort of sounds like you doesn't it? Criticizing someone or a group that you have never seen work, but don't worry I am sure if you are their boss they are just horrible officials? jk

With all block/charge situations I think you would have to see the play. This is a call that is very judgemental and changes from ref to ref. I have called charges, blocks, and let plays go because I felt the contact was incidental. It is impossible to tell you exactly what I would call until I saw a play.

In the world of internet play descriptions, interpretations have to given in black and white. B1 has lgp. A1 crashes into B1. The call should be charge on A1 every time regardless of the location of B1 - why? Because we have to make a ruling on what the rules say, not on some play we might envision.

I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard senior officials in interpretations meetings or at camps say "Call it this way" and then see them call the exact opposite when in a game situation. They may want to think one way, but when faced with an actual game play, they make a call based on the action and contact.

In the world of btaylor64, B1 is in a no win situation. If he stays put and keeps the lgp, he will be called for a block. If B1 gives up that position and aggressive challenges A1, mostly likely B1 will be called for a foul. It would take a rare, outstanding defensive play to defend A1 in the sitch - and even then B1 might still be whistled for the foul. If he backs out, his only hope is for A1 to miss the layup. Somehow, I cannot imagine btaylor calling a block on B1 if he was standing in place while A1 goes coast to coast and crashed into B1. If that is what he is envisioning, then I cannot agree with him.

Nope, I'm saying that you can <b>NEVER</b> have a <b>BLOCK</b> on a defender with LGP, as you have stated several times should be called. And I'm also saying that any association that would teach you such complete and utter boolsh!t is just a piss-poor excuse for an official's organization.

That's my opinion and it's firmly on the record, and also I have a pretty good idea what association you belong to and where it's located.

Well I've stated my stance on the play, and just to further clarify I am talking about a SECONDARY DEFENDER, not a primary one. 9 out of 10 times a block charge play with a secondary defender is a bang bang play. With no RA in HS and in college it gives me leeway to do what I want on those bang bang plays. If guys are just going to the whole with reckless abandon, in this case I can call an offensive foul and try to clean it up (if I remember correctly I said I would call a block most the time, but not all the time). No RA gives me a choice on bang bang plays and depending on the situation in the game I can judge accordingly.

P.S. I think my association is one of the best and love the guys I work with, so quit talking about my assignor and partners. They are good officials.

1) Yup, call a block <b>most</b> of the time even though the defender had LGP. Iow, you call what you feel like calling instead of calling what the rules say you should call. Absolutely freaking ridiculous....... and sad!

2) Are you serious? If your association is not only teaching you that crap but is also insisting that you call it that way too, then I'll repeat it again for you. Your association is setting one piss-poor example for the rest of the officials across the country that are trying to call the game properly and correctly. Your association is as ridiculous and sad as you are, and maybe even moreso because they're training you so poorly. Old School would make a good member of your association. He has some very similar ideas as yours when it comes to calling games. He's also in your general area.

Call it any way you want. If that's the way that you are being trained, you really don't have a choice. You don't know any better. Just don't expect other officials <b>or</b> officials associations to agree with you.

Where in the HS or NCAA rule book does it specify different requirements for a secondary defender? For that matter, where do either of them even define secondary defender?

How does the lack of an RA in HS and college give you the right to create an imaginary one?

HS block/charge plays are all about LGP. As long as the defender has LGP, you can't have a block, no matter where it is on the floor.