NBA Charge Foul rules

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

This is your opinion not supported by anything other than your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, and even to express it. You're not, however, entitled to levy moral judgments based on others' disagreements with your opinions.
And lest you deny it,

Originally Posted by Old School

I am disappointed that you care more about the rule then the players.

Originally Posted by Old School

I am the one who is old school, suppose to be stuck on the old values.

Just because you named yourself Old School in a fit of laughter while loggin on to the internet from your parents' basement doesn't make you any sort of arbiter of traditional values.

Originally Posted by Old School

Your fundenmental analogy of how defense should be played, is fundenmentally wrong for this day and age.

Please go look up the word "analogy," so you'll know how it's not appropriate for this discussion.

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

By what statistics? Your little make-believe poll? Mr. Rogers called and he wants his train back.

Originally Posted by Old School

The only people that don't want this too happen are people like you who are stuck in yesterday.

It's not about being stuck in yesterday, get off the high horse before it throws you off.

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

Wow, high and mighty.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This is your opinion not supported by anything other than your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, and even to express it. You're not, however, entitled to levy moral judgments based on others' disagreements with your opinions.
And lest you deny it,

Just because you named yourself Old School in a fit of laughter while loggin on to the internet from your parents' basement doesn't make you any sort of arbiter of traditional values.
Please go look up the word "analogy," so you'll know how it's not appropriate for this discussion.
By what statistics? Your little make-believe poll? Mr. Rogers called and he wants his train back.
It's not about being stuck in yesterday, get off the high horse before it throws you off.

Wow, high and mighty.

Excellent analysis of Old Drool's nonsense. And - you didn't even mention he said "fundenmental" twice. Somehow, misusing a form containing the term "mental" seems appropriate for him.

BTW - I especially liked the "Mr. Rogers" line. I had not heard that one before. Here's one you can use: "Hey - the 60s called. They want their haircut back." It doesn't pertain to anything here, but it's funny anyway.

Also BTW - check out my new thread on the general forum - unless you're frightened by something really sick.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Wow, high and mighty.

The only way to fly.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Wow, high and mighty.

Originally Posted by Old School

The only way to fly.

And, the only way to survive the 60s! Well - high anyway.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This is your opinion not supported by anything other than your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, and even to express it. You're not, however, entitled to levy moral judgments based on others' disagreements with your opinions.

Levy moral judgments, boy are we getting a little off here. You are right, it is no more than my opinion. However, if the arguement makes sense, or if the shoe fits, why not support it. Why not try to leave the sport a better game than you found it. I'm not trying to ride any higher moral horse or anything stupid like that. I am trying to improve the sport I love thru sound reasoning.

Now, if you can no longer debate the issue, perhaps you should quit talking, because you only make yourself look bad when you try to kill the messenger. IOWs, it's immature, you know, the Mr.Rogers comment, doesn't fit. I am the type of guy who studies the game. You are the type of guy who studies the rules. You, like most of the others on this forum have mastered the rules, and therefore doesn't want to see them change because you understand it so well. It is a classic denial symdrome. If, after viewing the video, you don't think nothing needs to change, you are in denial. Offensive player should have known better, right?. Well, being a student of the game, I can see the fallacy in the rule. When the player started his drive to the bucket, there was no one there, being the game is on the line, he's got to make that shot and his focus is now on putting the ball in the hoop. All of a sudden a defensive player runs underneath him.

When you have athlete's that can jump from the F/T line and hang all the way to the basket. That type of athlete is going to throw a monkey wrench into your fundamentally sound rules. The rules weren't written when athlete's could do that. We also don't need to do a drastic overhaul of the rules either, just tweak a few things here and there. Anything that involves safety should peak your interest and support. I'm not just talking about safety for my kids, i'm talking about safety for your kids too.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

if the arguement makes sense, or if the shoe fits, why not support it.

You're talking to a man who changed political ideologies because the logic didn't work with the one I grew up with. I'm more than willing to entertain new ideas. The problem is, your logic doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Old School

Now, if you can no longer debate the issue, perhaps you should quit talking, because you only make yourself look bad when you try to kill the messenger. IOWs, it's immature, you know, the Mr.Rogers comment, doesn't fit.

Actually, it did fit and it was immature. I can accept that. It fit because your "statistics" were make believe, just like the land in Mr. Rogers' back yard.

Originally Posted by Old School

I am the type of guy who studies the game. You are the type of guy who studies the rules.

You have no idea whether I study the game or not. Your only evidence for this is that I disagree with your interpretation of how various rules should be. Frankly, the evidence is flimsy.

Originally Posted by Old School

You, like most of the others on this forum have mastered the rules, and therefore doesn't want to see them change because you understand it so well. It is a classic denial symdrome.

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.

Originally Posted by Old School

If, after viewing the video, you don't think nothing needs to change, you are in denial. Offensive player should have known better, right?.

There's risk in this play on both sides, quite frankly. Odds are about even on which player will get hurt. 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

Well, being a student of the game, I can see the fallacy in the rule.

This is that high horse I was talking about. How's the air?

Originally Posted by Old School

When the player started his drive to the bucket, there was no one there, being the game is on the line, he's got to make that shot and his focus is now on putting the ball in the hoop. All of a sudden a defensive player runs underneath him.

So, you're saying the defensive player just appeared out of thin air? Was he hiding behind the paint lines or something? Maybe he was using the new cloaking device. I'm pretty sure we could use rule 2-3 to call a violation or technical foul for using witch craft. My point is there was enough information for him to know this defender was there. Stop and take a jump shot. Players do it all the time.

Originally Posted by Old School

When you have athlete's that can jump from the F/T line and hang all the way to the basket. That type of athlete is going to throw a monkey wrench into your fundamentally sound rules. The rules weren't written when athlete's could do that.

And if the player is in the air from the free throw line, the defender has less time to get into LGP. It's pretty simple, frankly.

Originally Posted by Old School

We also don't need to do a drastic overhaul of the rules either, just tweak a few things here and there.

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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.