NBA Charge Foul rules

[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.

[Adam]

Smart and talented offensive players have a little thing called "awareness." Awareness of where your teammates and opponents are. When you're driving the lane, you need to know where the defense is, and whether they have a chance to legally cut you off. It's part of the game and always has been. Kelvin's right, if you change it to include time and distance, you may as well have a layup contest and call it a day. It would certainly make our jobs easier.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Smart and talented offensive players have a little thing called "awareness." Awareness of where your teammates and opponents are. When you're driving the lane, you need to know where the defense is, and whether they have a chance to legally cut you off. It's part of the game and always has been. Kelvin's right, if you change it to include time and distance, you may as well have a layup contest and call it a day. It would certainly make our jobs easier.

It would also make the game better, the game safer, the game more enjoyable to watch, bring back defensive play at the basket instead of dumbie down (get to the spot first) bs.

I am the one who is old school, suppose to be stuck on the old values. Your fundenmental analogy of how defense should be played, is fundenmentally wrong for this day and age. Allow the game to progress to a better place. I bet if we asked 10 fans, 10 players, 10 defensive minded players, what would they rather see on a move to the bucket. The defense try to block the shot or a defender run up under the offensive player about to go airborne. I bet you would get a 30-0 that nobody wants to see another player run up underneath a player about to go airborne. Doesn't matter whether you get there first or not.

Your position is not even supported by statistics. The only people that don't want this too happen are people like you who are stuck in yesterday. I do not believe this is a fundamental change to the game. I do not believe we have to get out the way and allow the Michael Jordans to shoot layups either. If you notice, tall players have taken over the game, even without us making any rule changes. So changing this rule is not going to have the dramatic impact that you are so afraid of, and it might even save your grandson from a terrible season ending or career ending injury.

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.