NBA Charge Foul rules

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Old School

This is an excellent point to build on in all associations, but especially the NBA. I am so sick of seeing a secondary defender go over and establish themselves legally in front of a player about to go airborne. I think we need to do away with this and protect the shooter in an attempt to improve the game. Specifically the part about bringing good defense back to the play. Whenever there's a drive to the basket, secondary defender cannot plant himself in front of the person driving with the ball. Time and distance should be a factor.

For example: Rule 4-40-5 talks about allowing time and distance of not more than 2 strides when screening a moving opponent. We need this same consideration, even more so in my opinion for that of the person with the ball especially when they are driving to the basket for a layup. You can not just jump in front of a guy setting a screen when he is moving, but you can jump in front of the guy with the ball when he is moving just as fast and about to go airborne. Are you kidding me? This is asinine!

Time and distance is not a factor when you are establishing LGP except when you are screening a moving opponent. How about when the guy is about to shoot a layup. His chance for getting seriously injured is higher than the guy that's just playing defense on his opponent. Look at this list of injuries. This info along makes this article very valid, whoever said this guy doesn't know what's he's talking about has had too much to drink.

Article: ****************************************
.Gerald Wallace arrives late (by the old standard) to try to draw a charge on airborne Curtis Borchardt, who is knocked off kilter and breaks his fall with his wrist, which breaks. (To add insult to injury, the ref called a charge.)

. Andrei Kirilenko breaks his wrist on a nasty spill after help defender Kwame Brown hustles from under the hoop to get outside the restricted line as Kirilenko elevates, creating the unintended undercut effect.

OS,

This is just a part of the game, things like that are going to happen. I am definite believer of protecting the shooter, but at what cost? To screw a guy over and not give him an offensive foul call that he rightly deserves to have called in his favor?

In reference to your Kirilenko play, it is a block when he undercuts him. Just because there is a RA doesn't mean that it alone is the determining factor if it is a block or charge. We determine first of it is a good ole block/charge to begin with, then we look for the feet, that's why this is a play that if you call an offensive foul and your partner sees his feet in the RA then you can go to your partner and tell him to change the call because of such.

On plays to the basket where there is a block/charge play w/ a secondary defender, I do believe there is time and distance involved, not as literally as with screening action, but overall I believe there is. We judge whether a guy has LGP on plays to the basket involving a secondary defender by seeing when the offensive player starts his motion, right? Well if that is true most guys start their motion when they gather the ball on their first step, right? So that means that the defender has to be there when he gathers, or his first step when he gathers. This gives the player his second step to change direction, which entails to me that there is, in fact, time and distance involved, and that you gave this man a chance to change direction and avoid contact.

Jurassic has pointed out many times that he doesn't know what a foul is or is not in the pro game. I say this, all the guys in the pro system know what they are calling and the players know what the refs are going to be calling and the coaches know what they are going to be calling and those are the only people that matter. I would now like to ask a question, What is a foul in the college game?

I guess it is all determined on how you were taught to officiate while you're growing up. I was taught by pro guys, so I know, 97% of the time what a foul is in the pro game. I don't know what it is in the college game at all. I'm trying to learn though. I am, right now, a not so hot college ref, but I need to be better cause that is where a plurality of my games are coming from. Do you have to just adjust with what you're crew is calling from night to night?

[Old School]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

OS,

This is just a part of the game, things like that are going to happen. I am definite believer of protecting the shooter, but at what cost? To screw a guy over and not give him an offensive foul call that he rightly deserves to have called in his favor?

I think we're screwing the wrong guy. I think the shooter life is put in jeopardy and he's also tag for the foul. The defender did not try to play defense, he tried to beat him to the spot. That is not playing defense. I'm telling you if our founding father was alive, he would say somebody is asleep at the wheel here. The issue is the athlete is so much quicker, now you mix in a gifted D1 scholarship athlete getting beat to the spot by a lower level player who wouldn't even make the NAIA, who ruins his career. Why is it that in this country, we are not willing to do anything until someone is seriously hurt. For ex: we know that intersection needs a stop light but we refuse to put one there until there's a nasty auto accident and someone gets killed. Then you see a stop light go up real quick. That's what's going to have to happen here, unfortunately. Mark my words.

I got the fix too. If you're a secondary defender, time and distance does apply and the shooter needs no more than 2 steps but no less than one. Then we get back to playing defense on this type of play, trying to block the shot or steal the ball, and no more of this non-basketball sh!t stepping in front of a player driving to the bucket to shoot.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Old School

The defender did not try to play defense, he tried to beat him to the spot. That is not playing defense. The issue is the athlete is so much quicker, now you mix in a gifted D1 scholarship athlete getting beat to the spot by a lower level player who wouldn't even make the NAIA, who ruins his career.

Beating someone to the spot, thus gaining legal guarding position, is certainly one of the cornerstones of good defense. No matter what "gifted athlete" you are, you better look where you are going.

Along these lines, this is one of the things I like about basketball, as compared to other sports. If you have no athletic ability at all, if all you can do is stand and take up space, if you take up the right space, you can sometimes help your team.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Beating someone to the spot, thus gaining legal guarding position, is certainly one of the cornerstones of good defense. No matter what "gifted athlete" you are, you better look where you are going.

Along these lines, this is one of the things I like about basketball, as compared to other sports. If you have no athletic ability at all, if all you can do is stand and take up space, if you take up the right space, you can sometimes help your team.

Additionally, who IS the "secondary defender"? If you change the rules for time and distance based on such a definition, you'd have a real judgement mess....is it the primary defender? is it the secondary? was it the secondary that is now the primary (at what time does that occur)? etc....????? There would be so many 'what ifs' that it could never be called consistently or predicatbly.

The offense would want everyone to be declared a secondary defender so that could either easily pass by all defenders or run over all of them without getting a foul.

Imagine a zone defense...they're all sort of secondary defenders.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Additionally, who IS the "secondary defender"? If you change the rules for time and distance based on such a definition, you'd have a real judgement mess....is it the primary defender? is it the secondary? was it the secondary that is now the primary (at what time does that occur)? etc....????? There would be so many 'what ifs' that it could never be called consistently or predicatbly.

It is not hard at all to determine the secondary defender. If nobody is guarding the person with the ball and he is driving towards the basket, any defense, zone, whatever, is secondary. All situations where this would come into to play would occur at the basket. The NBA calls it the LDB - Lower Defensive Block. This elliminates all the many different what if scenaro's.

The offense would want everyone to be declared a secondary defender so that could either easily pass by all defenders or run over all of them without getting a foul.

This is a stupid statement, nobdy is avocating running over anybody. The issue is running underneath the player with the ball that's driving to the bucket to shoot a layup. The issue is a safety concern for the shooter, the issue is to protect the shooter!

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Old School

The NBA calls it the LDB - Lower Defensive Block.

Believe it or not, Old School got this wrong!! Gasp!! It's the Lower Defensive Box. Bet you can't even tell me how big it is or what it's boundaries are, or how it relates to the block/charge call.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Believe it or not, Old School got this wrong!! Gasp!! It's the Lower Defensive Box. Bet you can't even tell me how big it is or what it's boundaries are, or how it relates to the block/charge call.

Yea, that's what I meant to say. Block, box, they're bout the same but you are right, it should be box. Damn keyboard....

[Old School]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Beating someone to the spot, thus gaining legal guarding position, is certainly one of the cornerstones of good defense. No matter what "gifted athlete" you are, you better look where you are going.

Precisely the point. The reason why you can't get with this logic is because you never played, because if you did, you would certainly change your tune once you go up and someone runs underneath you. The problem here is that once you commit to your move to the bucket, as in the video, you are looking up at the basket. The basket is 10' high and you got a scoring opportunity, and when you made your move, there was no one in front of you. Everything that happens from this point forward is 10' high and above. Now, all of a sudden, someone runs underneath you unexpectingly, and you go awkwardly falling to the floor, possible injury is very likely.

We all reveiwed this video many times. Now I want you to review this video with the safety of the offensive player in mind. Review the contact on this play. Did anybody try to plow anybody over? Was there any contact to the turso? Did the defense try to play defense on this play? Do you recognize the secondary defender? Could time and distance be used as a factor here?

http://www.sportstricities.com/sport...-8578135c.html

Me and the author of the article is in agreement that we want to bring athletism back to this type of play. We no longer want to see another player running underneath a player with the ball about to score. Whatever happen to block the shot, or a steal of the ball. If you can't do these two things, then this play can not be defended. Get out the way before you get somebody hurt.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by just another ref
Beating someone to the spot, thus gaining legal guarding position, is certainly one of the cornerstones of good defense. No matter what "gifted athlete" you are, you better look where you are going.

Originally Posted by Old School

Precisely the point. The reason why you can't get with this logic is because you never played, because if you did, you would certainly change your tune once you go up and someone runs underneath you.

Boy, I guess he told me, didn't he?

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Old School

I think we're screwing the wrong guy. I think the shooter life is put in jeopardy and he's also tag for the foul. The defender did not try to play defense, he tried to beat him to the spot. That is not playing defense. I'm telling you if our founding father was alive, he would say somebody is asleep at the wheel here. The issue is the athlete is so much quicker, now you mix in a gifted D1 scholarship athlete getting beat to the spot by a lower level player who wouldn't even make the NAIA, who ruins his career. Why is it that in this country, we are not willing to do anything until someone is seriously hurt. For ex: we know that intersection needs a stop light but we refuse to put one there until there's a nasty auto accident and someone gets killed. Then you see a stop light go up real quick. That's what's going to have to happen here, unfortunately. Mark my words.

I got the fix too. If you're a secondary defender, time and distance does apply and the shooter needs no more than 2 steps but no less than one. Then we get back to playing defense on this type of play, trying to block the shot or steal the ball, and no more of this non-basketball sh!t stepping in front of a player driving to the bucket to shoot.

Since when did taking a charge not become part of the game anymore? It has been a conerstone in basketball as long as I have been alive and playing the game. It has and always will be taught because everyone and their mother considers it a great defensive play when a player will get to a spot legally before an opponent and give his body up for the welfare of the team.

There will always be kids trying and attempting to take charges in the game of basketball, and inevitably there will be kids who will come in late and undercut another player, which is unfortunate but will still happen and in these cases all we can do is call a block and hope the kid doesn't get hurt.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

On plays to the basket where there is a block/charge play w/ a secondary defender, I do believe there is time and distance involved, not as literally as with screening action, but overall I believe there is. We judge whether a guy has LGP on plays to the basket involving a secondary defender by seeing when the offensive player starts his motion, right? Well if that is true most guys start their motion when they gather the ball on their first step, right? So that means that the defender has to be there when he gathers, or his first step when he gathers. This gives the player his second step to change direction, which entails to me that there is, in fact, time and distance involved, and that you gave this man a chance to change direction and avoid contact.

Then why does the collision look so bad? This is an excellent point and the problem that i see is that the shooter is focusing on the basket when they are this close, and not looking at their feet or what's happening around their feet. When you are this close to the basket, you should not have to worry about somebody running under your feet. To me, this is not basketball. The defensive player is not trying to play defense, they are trying to get to a spot on the floor first. Is this really what we want for our game, long term? Players running around trying to get to a spot first. Think about this a minute. Isn't this the definition of dumb basketball? Doesn't take a lot of skill to run over there and stand at a spot first. Remember, the emphasis is on cleverness and skill.

Perhaps these players need to stop making such dangerous offensive moves to the basket, however, we as rule interpreters need to decide what is most important. Obtaining LGP or the ability to score and protect the person trying to score. Also remember the rules say to provide reasonable safety and protection. The NBA has tried to address this with the Restricted Area, so now we see players trying to get outside this area first, again leading to some nasty collisions.

I think if we could apply logic to this issue. Anything involving a collision is bad. Basketball is not a collision sport, football is a collision sport. Basketball is a contact sport. Collisions are bad for the safety of our players, and what I am referring too is happening at an alarming rate around the basket. We need to make some adjustments here before somebody gets seriously injured. I don’t think offensive players are going to stop making offensive moves towards the basket when close. That’s not going to stop. What we could stop is coaches teaching their players on defense to run to the spot to be the first one there while this player is attempting to go airborne to score. The bigger the player, the harder the fall.

If we can give time and distance to someone who is running without the ball, who is about to be screened, then we should be able to give time and distance to a airborne shooter whose close to the basket and whose focus is up top on the basket. We’re not trying to favor the offense here, we’re trying to prevent an alarming trend that is dangerous to "all" players.

Your thoughts…..does this make sense or am I just blowing smoke?

[Kelvin green]

If a person has LGP they are playing good defense. You dont ever need to "protect" a shooter from somone who has LGP. If the player goes "under his feet" and does not establish LGP it is a foul!

We do want players trying to get to the spots first. That is a fundamenatl rule of basketball. I repeat FUNDAMENTAL rule of basketball. If you did not have that then anything you call is just a guess with no consistency.

If a player is in control, then the player is in control and can change where is his going. The player has to assume that the defender's job is to stop him from scoring.

1) I think you have the NBA rule totally screwed up. If the play originates in the Lower defensive zone by the offensive player with the ball, the Restricted Area rule does not apply and the secondary player can take a charge!

2) If the crash is serious enough (read undercut/causing a severe contact) it can always be intentional or flagrant and can be penalized as such

3) If you make time and distance a factor on a driving shooter, just write the rule that days that once you drive to the basket you get a free shot. If you give Lebron James two steps before contact, he would score every time he drove. You could never play defense because they would take one step and stop short and do an uncontested shot.

You are blowing smoke and it makes no sense. Your time and distance theory would negate a fundamantal rule of basketball, gives the offense a huge advantage, and would still not prevent collisions.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

If a person has LGP they are playing good defense. You dont ever need to "protect" a shooter from somone who has LGP. If the player goes "under his feet" and does not establish LGP it is a foul!

No doubt, but what about 4-40-6? How do you explain the difference here? We have a player who's running without the ball, time and distance matters, but a player who is about to go airborne, serious injury is even greater because he has the ball and is looking to score, yet time and distance doesn't matter!

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Kevin green

We do want players trying to get to the spots first. That is a fundamenatl rule of basketball. I repeat FUNDAMENTAL rule of basketball. If you did not have that then anything you call is just a guess with no consistency.

This is lazy thinking, downright lazy. We do not want players trying to get to the spot first if it means serious injury to another player. You can not be that lazy mentally. We want players to play basketball, not get to a spot first. The emphasize is on skill and cleverness. It takes no skill to get to a spot first. It takes a lot of skill to block a shot and not commit a foul. If you don't process the skill, there's nothing you can do about a player who's a step away from scoring a bucket.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Kevin green

If a player is in control, then the player is in control and can change where is his going. The player has to assume that the defender's job is to stop him from scoring.

Agreed, but let's make it a basketball play. The men can jump so much higher than they did when these rules where incorporated. They are so much quicker too. Because of this increase speed and jumping ability, the likihood of serious injury around the basket is increased when defenders are not trying to play defense but get to a spot first.

Just reading the changes in the women's game. They have rescinded the rule where you can't stand under the basket and draw an offensive foul. Unfortunately, the rulemakers here are headed in the wrong direction. I am disappointed that you care more about the rule then the players. I just hope that we don't end up with someone paralyzed or worse because you refuse to acknowledge that the game is played different in the year 2007 then the year 1957 or when the rule was created.

You are blowing smoke and it makes no sense. Your time and distance theory would negate a fundamantal rule of basketball, gives the offense a huge advantage, and would still not prevent collisions.

I wouldn't say negate it, but modify it in an attempt to safe guard the players, produce more of a flow to the game, and bring back fundamental defensive play, like blocking the shot. Standing underneath the basket to draw a foul is not playing defense imo. 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.