NBA Charge Foul rules
 

I ran across this article by Dennis Hans of HoopsHype as a link from an article today about what's wrong with the NBA's officiating (not the officials, BTW, but the instructions from their supervisors). It's from last December, so if it's been mentioned before, forgive me, since a search on the forum didn't turn up anything.

In a letter to Ronnie Nunn, Hans suggests that the NBA is being ruined by eliminating the drive to the basket by rewarding flops. By calling so many charges, both the frequency of the drive and the legitimate shot block attempt are reduced. Hans makes the point that the key element in establishing whether LGP is established is whether the defender has position before the offensive player has taken his last step, when in reality the offensive player has to commit to his move on the next to last step. This gives an unfair advantage to the defender, since he step in to take a charge when it's essentially too late for the offensive player to change his mind.

I'm not sure about this, but it strikes me as a novel argument. As a fan, I certainly don't want to see Varajao falling down when he's hit by Earl Watson. What do you think?

Link: http://hoopshype.com/columns/nunn_hans.htm

Article: In the past few seasons we have had the frightening spectacle of help defenders sprinting from the weak side or from under the basket – often directly at the driver – to get planted outside the restricted line a split second before the driver (who may be airborne or about to elevate) reaches that spot. This has led to a number of scary collisions and falls (I'll cite some examples below) and surely has James Naismith rolling over in his grave.

Article: scary falls or collisions don't guarantee a serious injury, but they greatly increase the likelihood. In none of these case do I think the defender intended to endanger the other player. But he had been coached to help-defend in a manner that did just that.

My feeling exactly. If you recall, I defended the block on the block/charge video that sparked a huge debate. One reason is exactly what you and this article is getting at. It's not playing defense, it's playing the rules and endangers the offensive player. Oh, but i was called everything but the son of god for calling this a block. How about protect the shooter.

There was another thread we argued where in the playoff's, similiar play Steve Nash ran up under Tim Duncan in an attempt to drawl the charge. Most stated here they would have called a charge on Duncan. I immediately reasoned (and would have called block) that Nash has no possible change to defend Duncan and this defensive move could have seriously injured Tim, protect the shooter. I wanted to send the message right now if I'm ref'ing in the game, little guy, don't run under big guy and expect to get a call. I'm sending the message don't do that again.

To take this issue forward, we need to start rewarding defensive play on a drive to the bucket when there's contact. IOW's reward the defender if he's going for the ball in an attempt to play defense and there's contact. Often we call a foul on any little contact from the defense on this type of drive or move to the bucket, and we really shouldn't.

I think that Dennis Hans has approximately the same knowledge and understanding of the rules as Old School. And he should be taken just as seriously as any experienced official here takes Old School.

Lah me......fanboys.......:rolleyes:

Why would anyone become a basketball official who was not a fan?

First of all, Dr. Naismith is not dead. I saw him last week working at a 7-11 in Montana with Elvis. Second, Shirley has nothing to do with it. They broke up over an illegal use of hands call. :p


It's gotta be meds time.

I don't know. Why?

The clown that wrote that article hasn't a clue though.

I am the worst kind of coach (an AAU / summer league coach) :) . I coach girls, and my current team will be 8th and 9th graders.

To go along with the flopping talk previously in this thread - I hate it, I don't coach it, and I hate when it gets rewarded at any level. I teach my bigs to slide over get their arms up and to be a brick wall. Correct me if I am wrong, but as long as they get there first (and the shooter isn't in the air, etc.), then this isn't a foul on the defender. Unfortunately, my bigs are still relatively young and are more like a paper wall. What I mean is that the contact gets them in the stomach or chest, and they end up bending at the hip a little, arms come forward, and they get called for the foul. (the calls are not blocking fouls, they are hacking fouls)

I am at a loss because I feel there are occasions when if they would scream and fall backwards then they would get the charge call, but I won't ever teach that. I feel the defender is set, the offensive player contacts the defensive player, then the defensive player reacts to the contact. It seems like a charge to me.

Obviously I am not saying this happens every time and I know there are times when they get block happy and miss - I get that. Just looking for a rules explanation so I can tweak how I coach, if i need to.

Thanks in advance

Actually JR, you are the one that doesn't have a clue. No doubt your knowledge of the rules is beyond approach. But you do nothing to better the game. I am a player, and if you have ever had a player run underneath your feet, it is the scariest feeling in the world.

Tell me something JR, have you ever played the game? I hear you defend the rules but I never hear you defend the game. The person that wrote that article is trying from afar to defend the game. Just read the examples you moron. Read how many players have been seriously hurt by this crazy rule that you defend so vividly . the guy that wrote the article maybe a nobody in the business of basketball, but he hit it on the nail when he said Niasmith, the guy that we acknowledge as the one who invented the game, would roll over in his grave if he knew this was happening.

I'm going to go old school on you JR. In the early days of bb, they used a apple bucket for the goal and hung it on the balcony. When the team scored a goal, there was a mad rush up the balcony and to the bucket to get the ball out, which determined who got the ball next. Our inventor saw that this was a problem, not so much who got the ball next, but the fact that someone could get injured trying to get to the ball next. So they cut a hole in the bucket, to allow the ball to fall thru. Eliminated the problem.

You, Julie and most of the rest here are foot soldiers, you do what you are told to do, and you do it well. When it comes to having a clue of what's going on with the game you call, you don't have a clue and you hate on anybody who tries to make it better.

What separates me from you. I have a vision and you can't steal my vision by insulting me or ignoring me. I want to leave the game better than what I found it. I can no longer play but the players are the product, their well being and safety is paramount and the founding father would agree that that rule, who got there first is ridiculous, and it's being taught by the coaches.

AHA! The truth is out. I knew you weren't an official.

Where do you get this crap? First of all, they used peach baskets, not apple buckets. Second, after a goal, the ball was retrieved and a jump ball was held for the next possession. The rule about being the first to get the ball had to do with when the ball went OOB, not into the basket. Eventually, cages were built around the floor so the ball wouldn't go up into the stands, which is why basketball players were referred to as "cagers" for many years.

Uh-oh, you insulted Juulie (and you misspelled her name). Our truce is off. Why don't you just go up into the hills somewhere and practice cliff diving? :mad:

Dr. Naismith's Original Rules Of Basketball
 

Dr. Naismith's Original Thirteen Rules Of Basketball.

1. The ball may be thrown in any direction with one or both hands.

2. The ball may be batted in any direction with one or both hands (never with the fist).

3. A player cannot run with the ball. The player must throw it from the spot on which he catches it, allowance to be made for a man who catches the ball when running at a good speed if he tries to stop.

4. The ball must be held in or between the hands; the arms or body must not be used for holding it.

5. No shouldering, holding, pushing, tripping, or striking in any way the person of an opponent shall be allowed;the first infringement of this rule by any player shall count as a foul, the second shall disqualify him until the next goal is made, or, if there was evident intent to injure the person, for the whole of the game, no substitute allowed.

6. A foul is striking at the ball with the fist, violation of Rules 3,4, and such as described in Rule 5.

7. If either side makes three consecutive fouls, it shall count a goal for the opponents (consecutive means without the opponents in the mean time making a foul).

8. A goal shall be made when the ball is thrown or batted from the grounds into the basket and stays there, providing those defending the goal do not touch or disturb the goal. If the ball rests on the edges, and the opponent moves the basket, it shall count as a goal.

9. When the ball goes out of bounds, it shall be thrown into the field of play by the person first touching it. In case of a dispute, the umpire shall throw it straight into the field. The thrower-in is allowed five seconds; if he holds it longer, it shall go to the opponent. If any side persists in delaying the game, the umpire shall call a foul on that side.

10. The umpire shall be judge of the men and shall note the fouls and notify the referee when three consecutive fouls have been made. He shall have power to disqualify men according to Rule 5.

11. The referee shall be judge of the ball and shall decide when the ball is in play, in bounds, to which side it belongs, and shall keep the time. He shall decide when a goal has been made, and keep account of the goals with any other duties that are usually performed by a referee.

12. The time shall be two 15-minute halves, with five minutes' rest between.

13. The side making the most goals in that time shall be declared the winner. In case of a draw, the game may,by agreement of the captains, be continued until another goal is made.

Well, we may have a clue as to Old School's real name now. My guess? Ah, never mind. I'll go back to just correcting the errors now.

Coach. It looks to me, if it's happening as you say it is, that the officials are missing some player control fouls. Hitting the defender in the stomach with enough force to make her bend into the shooter strikes me as either a PC foul or a no-call.

note: I have no reason to doubt that it's happening as you say it is.

Personally when I think of flopping, I think of a player falling back even when there was little or no contact, certainly not enough to cause the defender to fall back. However, perhaps your players are overdoing it, anticipating the contact and leaning into it. I think that "be a brick wall" is certainly a sound philosophy for your defenders, but be sure to emphasize verticality, and if heavy contact is imminent, even leaning slightly away to cushion the blow is okay. Moreover, if the contact is sufficient to cause displacement, there is no shame in falling backward, and this shouldn't keep you from getting a call. I strongly agree with you about avoiding the screaming thing.

to me coach, you just define why you should flop. You may not agree with it, lord knows there are many things I don't agree with when it comes to the rules. But until they change the rules you are doing your girls a disservice by not teaching them the proper way to defend this play. Remember, flopping is illegal, however, if there's contact and you fall back, I don't like the word flop here, that is not illegal. I saw a similiar play in the USA vs. Argentina Gold Medal game where the big player from Argetina was standing in the lane and Chauncey Billups plowed into him on the drive to the bucket, he stood his ground, and his arms came down, just like you stated, and he got hit with the foul. He then turned and kick that rotating billbroad on the floor and broke it. He was then given a technical and Chauncey shot 4 shots and the USA team got the ball back. FIBA rules suck here but anyway, had he would have sold the contact on contact instead of standing his ground, would have been an easy offensive foul call to make, because they where playing a zone.

If they stand like a wall and a player crashes into them and they hold their ground, chances are, that's going to be a no call. However, if they are bending and the arms fall forward into the shooter, then we got this 2nd thing occurring with the arms coming down into the shooters space, easy foul call to make on the shot. If they flop as you guys call it, or just sell the initial contact, IOW's, give it the Dennis Rodman treatment, the only thing i have to do is verify if there is contact, offense!

If you don't want to teach the contact and fall back (not a flop) teach them to play defense. IOWs go up and block the shot. If it's big on big, you get the desired result with your defensive tactic, but if it's big on small, bigger player need to block the shot instead of trying to hold their ground, imho. Bigger players don't need to be flopping either when a smaller player comes into them.

A stupid and totally wrong argument.

There is no time or distance with regard to establishing legal guarding postion. It doesn't matter what "step" the dribbler is on. All the guard has to do is establish LGP before the dribbler/shooter begins his upward motion. (NBA Comments on the Rules, II. Basic Principles C. Block-Charge)

I'm not going to argue the technical merits of the writer's suggestion. Personally, my judgment isn't good enough to determine whether a collision is a block or a charge in real time at the NBA level. I have trouble even watching in slow motion sometimes.

The point is that the NBA is unwatchable for many former fans. Many posters on this board have stated proudly that they haven't watched a game in years. More than at any other level basketball, the NBA game is about what's good for the fans, not for the players or the officials or the coaches. Personally, I like the game the way it is, except that the Knicks always lose.

Officials have a unique perspective, in that they watch more basketball than almost anyone else, and they understand how the various rule changes can affect the play. If there is a way to improve the NBA game so that you'll watch it, I'd like to hear it.

That's the writer's point. He knows the current rule. He says that time and distance should matter, because the player cannot change his mind once he gathers for a shot.

Bring back the closely guarded 5-second count. That way, Lebron would have to pass the ball to a teammate, and not score all the points in the 4th quarter, and put everybody to sleep, including the Pistons.

Do away with the 3 seconds defense in the lane. Shooting technicals only slows the game down.

Do not allow players to talk to officials, only captains.

To name a few....

Just calling the rules that they already have might be a good start. Traveling and palming, for example, are very inconsistently called and I don't have a clue what a foul consists of either.

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.

. Brad Miller catches a pass on the right side maybe 18 feet from the hoop and sees a clear path to the hoop. Weak side defender Dwyane Wade knows what he must do to earn brownie points from Coach Stan Van Gundy and sprints across the lane to plant his feet outside the restricted line just in time for a knee-on-shin collision with Miller. Wade's hurting; he'll play but struggle for a few weeks before regaining his groove. Miller's a bloody mess. He'll miss a couple of weeks, then come back – probably prematurely – and soon thereafter develop another problem with the same leg, which turns out to be a broken bone, which puts him out for a far longer stretch.

. Nenê drives on Tim Duncan when he sees Horry sprinting at him, trying to get set outside the restricted line and beat Nenê to the spot. To avoid another foul (even an unjust one), Nenê attempts an awkward, unnatural stop on one leg. Is that what caused his knee to explode? One can't say for sure, but I watched the replay several times and that's how it looked to me. That was opening night 2005-06 and it put Nenê out for the season. Even now, his knee is far from right.

. It's the 2006 Finals and Josh Howard beats his man off the dribble. Shaq moves laterally into Howard's path very late (though I think a charge was called). Shaq falls backwards, and 350 pounds crash into the side of the leg of an innocent bystander, creating the first "collateral damage" (CD) injury of the Finals. Miraculously, Wade sustains merely a bad sprain rather than ripped ligaments, and he goes on to lead the Heat to the title. (Kirilenko and Leandro Barbosa each missed six or more weeks after similar CD plays involving careening Spurs far lighter than Shaq.

. Wade penetrates against the Bulls, ascends at the foul line and lobs an alley-oop for Shaq. Othella Harrington, in typical Skiles-coached fashion, comes running from 15 feet away so he can be planted at the precise spot where Wade lands. Harrington offers no resistance to marginal contact from Wade and thus falls flat on his back under the basket as Shaq, who is focused on catching the lob, descends. Shaq's foot lands awkwardly on Harrington and wrenches his knee. A scary end to a scary play, but Dame Fortune smiles on the Diesel. He escapes with a severe sprain and returns to action maybe a couple weeks later, only to catch a Jermaine O'Neal knee with his thigh, dooming the Heat's 2005 title hopes.

. New Spur Brent Barry, eager to show Gregg Popovich he understands the Spurs team-defense concept and is willing to "sacrifice his body" (while subjecting an opposing player to far greater risk), pulls a run-under on a driving Kobe Bryant. Kobe's scary fall momentarily silences the L.A. crowd, but he's okay. Weeks later his season will be ruined by a more mundane run-under play by Ira Newble as Kobe descended after snatching a long rebound. Newble had hustled over, perhaps to attempt a steal, and Kobe landed on his foot, wrecking his ankle (just as Ron Artest did to Shaq early last season).

. Dwight Howard grabs a loose ball near the foul line, sees an opening to the hoop, dribbles in and elevates. Boston's Al Jefferson simultaneously rushes forward from the baseline to try to beat Howard to a piece of wood just outside the restricted line. It's a dead heat, but Howard is airborne when the two meet. Howard's massive body rotates from vertical to horizontal as he hurtles toward the floor face first. Luckily, Jefferson is sprawled on the court, and Howard is able to slightly break his fall by getting a hand or forearm down just as his head is landing on Jefferson. The play leaves both players woozy, but they survive. That was one of the scariest falls I've ever seen. Who knows what would have happened if Howard had been unable to break his fall in the nick of time?

This reminds me of a really stupid theory I read once about food addictions. D@mmit, I can't remember where I read it, though.

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?

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.

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.

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.

No, that's not his point. His point is that he doesn't understand the rule.

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.

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!

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.

Believe it or not, Old School got this wrong!! Gasp!! :eek: 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.

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

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....

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :D

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.

The only way to fly.

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


http://www.emerchandise.com/images/p...dMS60S0002.jpg

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.

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.

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

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.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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

:D :D :D

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

Really, how about this from your post # 37 on this thread:
And this from post #39:
If you're wanting to change your position now, fine, but don't deny what's in print for everyone to read.

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.

Then you are in denial.

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.

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...

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.

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.
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.

wow oh no oh no oh no
 

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.

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.

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?

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...

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?

Not only get rid of running and jumping, get rid of the ball. That should stop a lot of the problems.

Maybe we could play it like a board game. You get a bunch of players on each side of the board, some taller than others, some quicker than others, and some more versatile than others.

Not sure what to call it, though.

<font size = 2>Chess?</font size>

Yes. It's how he gets his entertainment. He is not an official and knows nothing about officiating. He comes here only to post inane and/or insulting comments and then laugh when people get all worked up about it.

But he's not trying to persuade anyone. He's simply an idiot who gets his jollies by stirring up trouble. Guess how many people are on my ignore list. One. Care to guess who it is?

<B></B>Me?

Woddy?

I never would have thought of that.

Have you heard the song it's too late to turn back now....well, it's too late, damage has been done. Just ask Michael Vick, or Pres. Bush. Now, you want me to believe all of a sudden you like me. That's funny:D :D :D

First of all, not every bit of contact to the torso if a foul, only when a player spots up LGP is contact to the torso crucial. You shouldn't hate it, it's a very good barometer.

This is something new, I have not heard this analogy before. If I was to use this analogy, then the play in the video is a block because the defender was not there when the player gathered the ball.

Your personal belief is completely wrong under both NCAA and NFHS rules. If anyone is giving 2 steps in these situations, then they are calling block/charges incorrectly. There is no time/distance allowed when guarding a player <b>with</b> the ball, either dribbling or holding. The only criteria used to make the correct call is whether the defender has a legal guarding position at the time of contact, where on the defender the contact occurs, and whether the dribbler was able to get his head/shoulders past the defender before contact. Whether they gather the ball or not or how many steps the player with the ball takes before the contact occurs is completely irrelevant, rules-wise.

The criteria that you are using applies to guarding a player <b>without</b> the ball.

You're exactly right in terms of primary defenders, but I was under the assumption that we were all talking about secondary defenders and them coming in and undercutting the shooter?

The same rules apply to secondary defenders also under NFHS and NCAA rules. And undercutting the shooter is a separate matter...and call. In that situation, a defender has to establish and maintain a legal guarding position before the player with ball becomes airborne.

Of course, if you're discussing strictly NBA rules, ignore everything that I've posted. I simply do not have sufficient knowledge of that ruleset to comment one way or another.

It seems to me one cannot have LGP and undercut a shooter.

Um, yeah......

If you remove time and distance and stipulate before the shooter goes airborne. It is possible.

Why is it in Fed. that more allowance in terms of LGP is given to the player without the ball and on defense then the player with the ball about to score? 4-40-6

Removed and edited: I said I was done. I'll keep my word.