NBA Charge Foul rules

[Adam]

You know what. You're right, OS. It just dawned on me that your rule would make the game a bit safer. As I stated, it would virtually end pc fouls. It would also put an end to those collisions. it would, as I also stated, turn the game into a layup drill. Of course, then we could maybe change some other rules to completely illiminate any contact. If I'm that worried about my kids' safety, I'll have them join the chess team.

Basketball is a contact sport, players know that and adjust.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You know what. You're right, OS. It just dawned on me that your rule would make the game a bit safer. As I stated, it would virtually end pc fouls. It would also put an end to those collisions. it would, as I also stated, turn the game into a layup drill. Of course, then we could maybe change some other rules to completely illiminate any contact. If I'm that worried about my kids' safety, I'll have them join the chess team.

Basketball is a contact sport, players know that and adjust.

You're right, bb is a contact sport, but it is not a collision sport.

As to the game being a layup drill, this is what I call overreaction to losing something you value so dearly. You will never take the jump shot out of basketball, never! You also still have the ability to play defense, did we forget about that little detail while we where overreacting. One of the greatest basketball players of all-time, Bill Russell made his name by blocking shots. Do you think it will be a layup drill with players like Bill Russell on the court? Who would you rather see in the Hall of Fame, great players like Bill Russell for what he bought to the game, or marginal players like Shane Batia for his ability to step in front of someone and draw a charge?

Since you don't care about the players safety, perhaps you should go officiate chess matches. You would serve both games better because you aree useless to basketball. I will need to go back and retype what i wrote for your other dumb remarks. I hit the wrong bottom and everything was deleted. So this will be somewhat out of order.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, we don't want to see this change because it wouldn't make the game better. The fact that we disagree with you doesn't mean what you think it does.There's risk in this play on both sides, quite frankly. Odds are about even on which player will get hurt.

Why not try and make it better for both players. That is my position.

The fact is, the offensive player needs to consider that the guy who's close to being in position could easily get into position before he takes off. Oddly enough, 99% of the time they adjust and there's no contact. Amazing.

It is amazing how you come up with 99%. Using your numbers, if we could prevent just one accident, one collision, one injury to either player, wouldn't the rule change still be worth it?

What you're proposing (adding time and distance to the block-charge decision) is a drastic overhaul. Requiring LGP two steps before take-off will virtually illiminate PC calls, and most games will be come layup drills.

Okay, this is my response to this statement that I lost. If you're going to debate me on this subject, at least get my position right. I am NOT advocating 2 steps, I am for only ONE step. Get it right! Two steps is unnecessary.

Oh, and the other great point. In the video and the way the LGP rule is determined. There is no way the official, in real time, can make this call adequately. At best, it is a guess. At what point the defender got his foot set (LGP) and the shooter foot leaving the court on the shot attempt is impossible to determine, at game speed. So this rule is already flawed before any changes. Most everyone that viewed this video the first time said the call could go either way. Why not kill two, maybe even 3 birds with one stone or one rule change. Give me a step and it has to be on a play or drive at the basket. Everyone calling this play a block would mean consistency across the ranks. A bonus when you consider the safety factor.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Old School

I hit the wrong bottom

Do this today on a school playground and you'll be in big trouble!!

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Do this today on a school playground and you'll be in big trouble!!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

Why not try and make it better for both players. That is my position.

It's not broke, that's my position.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells The Great

The fact is, the offensive player needs to consider that the guy who's close to being in position could easily get into position before he takes off. Oddly enough, 99% of the time they adjust and there's no contact. Amazing.

Originally Posted by Old School

It is amazing how you come up with 99%. Using your numbers, if we could prevent just one accident, one collision, one injury to either player, wouldn't the rule change still be worth it?

You're not using my numbers correctly. I said 99% of the time there is no collision. Even when there are collisions, there are injuries less than 1% of the time. You're talking about changing a rule to stop an injury that might occur once in 10,000 trips to the hoop. Players aren't that fragile.

Originally Posted by Old School

Okay, this is my response to this statement that I lost. If you're going to debate me on this subject, at least get my position right. I am NOT advocating 2 steps, I am for only ONE step. Get it right! Two steps is unnecessary.

Really, how about this from your post # 37 on this thread:

Originally Posted by Old School

In the event that you are standing there two steps before the offenisive player gets there, that is a different story. One step, in my opinion is too late.

And this from post #39:

Originally Posted by Old School

Two steps you're good and we don't even need a restrictive area. One step and you're too late, better to go for the block of the shot. I'd say that is a happy medium.

If you're wanting to change your position now, fine, but don't deny what's in print for everyone to read.

Originally Posted by Old School

Oh, and the other great point. In the video and the way the LGP rule is determined. There is no way the official, in real time, can make this call adequately. At best, it is a guess. At what point the defender got his foot set (LGP) and the shooter foot leaving the court on the shot attempt is impossible to determine, at game speed. So this rule is already flawed before any changes.

Deciding whether the player was in LGP before the player too one step prior to leaping is going to be even more difficult because you're going to have to widen your focus since they'll be farther apart. The rule may be difficult to enforce (I'm not conceding that), but your "solution" doesn't fix anything. It makes it worse. You might solve this one play, but now you've taken half the obvious charge calls and made them razor thin margins.

It's the same logic that leads governments to raise the speed limit. "Gee, everyone is driving 74 when the speed limit is 65. We'll just raise the limit to 75 and no one will speed." It's stupid, because people like me will just get out there and drive 84 now.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's not broke, that's my position.

Then you are in denial.

Deciding whether the player was in LGP before the player too one step prior to leaping is going to be even more difficult because you're going to have to widen your focus since they'll be farther apart.

Wrong again, we are only concerned about contact. If you are calling PC or charges correctly, you are looking for contact to the turso. No need to widen your view for that. Contact will always occur at the point of impact. If the defender, at the point of impact, just stepped into his position (TIME), AND the shooter is about to go airborne (distance) on a drive to the bucket. The impact or point of contact will not be at the turso of the defender. Very easy call to make, the play will always look like a submarine attack on the shooter.

The rule may be difficult to enforce (I'm not conceding that), but your "solution" doesn't fix anything. It makes it worse. You might solve this one play, but now you've taken half the obvious charge calls and made them razor thin margins.

Disagree, you need to explain this one.

My solution fixes quite a few things, should I list them.
1.) Player safety - both
2.) Liability for the hosts/owners - lawsuits, legal fees, insurance costs....
3.) Brings back athletic play to the defense, makes the game more enjoyable to watch, makes the game more enjoyable to play
4.) The play becomes more consistently called by the officials
5.) Increase the need for great defensive players like Bill Russell, defensive players will stand out more.
6.) One of yours, less player control fouls at the basket
7.) Protect the shooter - to name a few...

It's the same logic that leads governments to raise the speed limit. "Gee, everyone is driving 74 when the speed limit is 65. We'll just raise the limit to 75 and no one will speed." It's stupid, because people like me will just get out there and drive 84 now.

You can't legislate stupid. At some point, you need to take responsibily for your own actions. We are taking about basketball here and this example doesn't fit. A better example might be if you are approaching a stop light going 50 mph and the light is green, you see that you can safety enter the intersection. Then the Fed. comes along and says no time and distance matters when you are establishing LGP except 4-40-6. So, at the point you reach the intersection, going 50 mph, the light changes red (skipped yellow) and another vechilce is coming the other way and there's nothing you can do to avoid the collision. Then you get tagged for the violation. Using your words, you should have known that I might change the light on you and take the intersection away. Never assume the intersection is clear even though you got the green and you got there first.

I should point out that in the event the shooters foot has left the floor and is airborne and the defender then steps in to establish. By rule this is in fact too late. However, in the event that all this happens at about the same time. Half the country is going to call block and the other half is going to call charge, as proven by the video. That in itself should tell you something needs to be done here. I'm going to say this and leave it at that. Botttom line, is when I am taking to new or young and impressionable officials, I will teach them that if you are not sure, protect the shooter. I will teach them to look at the call as if it was you making that move, as if it was you going thru that intersection. If the Fed. which knows this is a problem chooses not to do anything about it, then you risk having defectors go off on their own. You risk seperating the union because bb will not be played like that in the gyms that I work. I refuse to legislate stupid. Coaches had better teach their players how to play defense because they are not getting this call from me.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

Wrong again, we are only concerned about contact. If you are calling PC or charges correctly, you are looking for contact to the turso. No need to widen your view for that. Contact will always occur at the point of impact. If the defender, at the point of impact, just stepped into his position (TIME), AND the shooter is about to go airborne (distance) on a drive to the bucket. The impact or point of contact will not be at the turso of the defender. Very easy call to make, the play will always look like a submarine attack on the shooter.

You can't possibly be this dense, you have to be making this crap up. Even a fanboy should know better. As long as the defender is in LGP prior to the shooter becoming airborne, the contact will be square on. Whether he gave two steps or one step or just got there prior to the last leap, it's going to look the same at the point of contact.

Originally Posted by Old School

You need to explain….

It's really quite simple. There is a point at which you need to judge which event happens first. Changing what those events are doesn't change the fact that you still have to make a judgment. The only difference is, in your world, it would be more difficult. Why, you might ask?
Judging whether event A happened before or after event B gets more difficult the closer they happen together in time. It gets even more difficult the further they happen from each other in distance. Let's just provide an absurd example:
If you must determine whether B1 is in LGP prior to A1 crossing the half court line, I'm sure we could all agree this is impossible. Yet it's very possible to decide whether it happens before the shooter leaps airborne, because these events are only happening about three feet from each other on the floor. If you insist they get one step, then the events are happening anywhere from 6 to 10 feet apart. Add another step, and the distance grows to at least 9 feet and upwards of 15 feet. Now, imagine trying to determine whether B1 is in LGP prior to A1 taking the two steps before going airborne when one event is happening two feet in front of the hoop and the other is happening behind the three point line. No official should even be looking in both places.
The problem is you're not thinking through the ramifications of your drastic proposal.
I'm sure others will cheer, but I'm done here. If you can't figure this out, then you'll just have to go on hating the rules the way they are.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by Old School

Botttom line, is when I am taking to new or young and impressionable officials.

Frankly this scares the bejeeesus out of me.....and just how do these young impressionable officials like you taking to them?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by cmathews

Frankly this scares the bejeeesus out of me.....and just how do these young impressionable officials like you taking to them?

As long as he doesn't hit the wrong bottom, things can go smoothly.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You can't possibly be this dense, you have to be making this crap up. Even a fanboy should know better. As long as the defender is in LGP prior to the shooter becoming airborne, the contact will be square on. Whether he gave two steps or one step or just got there prior to the last leap, it's going to look the same at the point of contact.

You need to read your own writing because I got proof that you are in fact that dense. Go back and view the video and please tell us all, was the contact to the turso of the defensive player? We don't have to guess, it's right there in the video.

I see one big problem here with you guys that support this rule as written. You have never been in a situation where someone has taken your feet out from under you after you've gone airborne. In football, you got pads on, a helmet, you got a lot of equipment to help you absorb the fall. In basketball, you got a hard wood floor and no protection.

Judging whether event A happened before or after event B gets more difficult the closer they happen together in time. It gets even more difficult the further they happen from each other in distance. Let's just provide an absurd example: If you must determine whether B1 is in LGP prior to A1 crossing the half court line, I'm sure we could all agree this is impossible.

This is where stupid comes back in, or your lack of comprehension. I have stated no less then 10 times that the change I recommend will only occur at the basket. The NBA has this definition called the Lower Defensive Box. For this change to come into play, we must be in this area of the court, or for laymen's terms, at the basket. If we're not at the basket, normal LGP rules apply. You know, it's like A first, then B, then C and so forth.

If you insist they get one step, then the events are happening anywhere from 6 to 10 feet apart. Add another step, and the distance grows to at least 9 feet and upwards of 15 feet. Now, imagine trying to determine whether B1 is in LGP prior to A1 taking the two steps before going airborne when one event is happening two feet in front of the hoop and the other is happening behind the three point line. No official should even be looking in both places. The problem is you're not thinking through the ramifications of your drastic proposal. If you can't figure this out, then you'll just have to go on hating the rules the way they are.

I do not hate the rules. I love and support the rules, but this rule needs a little tweak. I like this paragraph better than anything you stated because it gets into fail checking or stress testing my logic. Any rule change must withstand criticism.
#1.) coaches don't teach their players to go run in front of a player out on the 3-pt line. What's being taught is to protect the basket, take the charge. This is really what's we're dealing with.
#2.) any player who starts his layup or goes airborne to shoot from the 3-pt line, I'm not concerned with.

I think my best argument here is the contact at the turso. Let's use the video for this next example. Instead of B3 stepping over at the last minute, imagine this player was already there, and A1 went airborne when he did. He's going to come down right into B3 lap or body, easy PC call to make. However, when the contact occurs elsewhere or other than the turso (submarine effect) is when you can reason that B3 got there to late. The defender is allowed to duck to prevent shock or emminent contact, but emmiment contact should occur at the turso if the defender had not move.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Old School

I see one big problem here with you guys that support this rule as written. You have never been in a situation where someone has taken your feet out from under you after you've gone airborne. In football, you got pads on, a helmet, you got a lot of equipment to help you absorb the fall. In basketball, you got a hard wood floor and no protection.

If safety is the main concern, why not just stop allowing players to jump in the air while they're running? They certainly can't have their feet "taken out from under them" if they are only allowed to jump straight up and down, right?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

If safety is the main concern, why not just stop allowing players to jump in the air while they're running?

Running? What are you, crazy? They could collide with another player or trip and fall. Get running out of the sport.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Running? What are you, crazy? They could collide with another player or trip and fall. Get running out of the sport.

Ooh, good point; I hadn't thought of that.

Let me go back to my drawing board and see what I can come up with...

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Old School

You need to read your own writing because I got proof that you are in fact that dense. Go back and view the video and please tell us all, was the contact to the turso of the defensive player? We don't have to guess, it's right there in the video.

I see one big problem here with you guys that support this rule as written. You have never been in a situation where someone has taken your feet out from under you after you've gone airborne. In football, you got pads on, a helmet, you got a lot of equipment to help you absorb the fall. In basketball, you got a hard wood floor and no protection.

This is where stupid comes back in, or your lack of comprehension. I have stated no less then 10 times that the change I recommend will only occur at the basket. The NBA has this definition called the Lower Defensive Box. For this change to come into play, we must be in this area of the court, or for laymen's terms, at the basket. If we're not at the basket, normal LGP rules apply. You know, it's like A first, then B, then C and so forth.

I do not hate the rules. I love and support the rules, but this rule needs a little tweak. I like this paragraph better than anything you stated because it gets into fail checking or stress testing my logic. Any rule change must withstand criticism.
#1.) coaches don't teach their players to go run in front of a player out on the 3-pt line. What's being taught is to protect the basket, take the charge. This is really what's we're dealing with.
#2.) any player who starts his layup or goes airborne to shoot from the 3-pt line, I'm not concerned with.

I think my best argument here is the contact at the turso. Let's use the video for this next example. Instead of B3 stepping over at the last minute, imagine this player was already there, and A1 went airborne when he did. He's going to come down right into B3 lap or body, easy PC call to make. However, when the contact occurs elsewhere or other than the turso (submarine effect) is when you can reason that B3 got there to late. The defender is allowed to duck to prevent shock or emminent contact, but emmiment contact should occur at the turso if the defender had not move.

RED- If the speed limit analogy is not applicable to the situation or at least comprable, then neither is the football analogy, but I, in fact think they are both applicable in their respective regards.

ORANGE- Everybody has let you keep on and keep on giving your opinion, which you have the God given right to do, without totally, blatantly, brutally humiliating you like they do in previous threads and yet in 2 successive posts you refer to a person or persons as stupid and lacking comprehension. Are you wanting everybody on here to disagree with you and hate you? I am in PR and let me tell you that this is not how you persuade an audience.

GREEN- If you call every bit of contact to the torso an offensive foul, then you will have at least a good amount of plays that will be incorrect. I always hate hearing the "torso" explanation on block/charge play. It is good in a broad, general way, but there is so much more to it than that, imo.

Also, your mention of the Lower Defensive Box (NBA) has no merit within your debate. The LDB was created for several reasons, one of which causes for less distance to be b/w players on block/charge plays. If a play originates in the LDB a player can take a charge inside the RA.

If you feel so adamant about players coming in underneath, then just deem the play a flagrant foul and toss the kid. I'm sure you will get high praise by everyone for that one! Sorry I had to make a joke somewhere.

I have been undercut several times in my basketball career, and yes it sucks, but it happens and I, personally, don't think that you are going to stop it from happening especially in HS where there are less and less athletic players on teams and the way they can contribute to the team is by giving up their own bodies(taking a charge) for the sake of it.

I personally believe we give 2 steps to players already on block/charge plays. We give them 1 when they gather the ball (pivot) and 2 when they step off the pivot foot onto the other (the one they jump off of). The gather starts the continuing motion meaning the defender has to be there when the offensive player gathers, easily giving the offensive player the ability to switch and/or change direction. How is that not good enough?