Ncaa Poe
 

I don't believe it will. The NCAA is just reiterating what the "big dogs" have been doing for years or at least how they have reffed plays to the basket.

I think you're totally misunderstanding the POE (or maybe you're misunderstanding how the "big dogs" have been doing it). For years now, there has been an invisible Restricted Area under the basket in NCAA basketball. You see a huge crash and there's no whistle. If you ask why, you get the "under the basket" answer. The POE is not reiterating that philosophy; it is totally repudiating it.

This POE is saying that there is no restricted area anymore for NCAA basketball. If a defender takes a charge, but is directly under the basket, it is to be called a charge. "[T]here are no exceptions to the charge/block rules as to where the illegal contact occurs on the playing court." Position on the court is no longer to be a consideration in calling block/charge plays. Only the contact is to be considered.

Thanks Scrapper1, that is definitely the way I understood it. It looks as though they are reaching for consistency here. Also, we're going to have more guys running underneath the basket to try and draw this type of foul. I think it's cheap ugly basketball to stand underneath the basket to try and draw a foul on a player driving towards the basket with the ball. To reward the defense is turning the game in the wrong direction. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

You have to wonder that the people in charge of making decisions on the rules today is totally disconnected from the game itself. It's like our president, who has no clue about the cost of gasoline because he doesn't have to buy his own gas, he is totally disconnected from this entire process. Therefore, he could care less if the price of gas goes up.

Hold on here Scrappy. The POE as posted here includes these words:

This is the first time I've seen in words any reference to severity (actually lack of severity) of contact or a defender's position under the basket with regards to calling these fouls in ncaa-m. So while I agree that the 'restricted area' has been declared a no-no (yet again) we are finally given justification for passing on some calls which is quite similar to how it's been called for a while now.

And btw, I'm not even sure that no-calls on huge crashes under the basket are as common as you make them out to be. Most of us do actually call *something* on huge crashes, regardless of where they happen.

Sorry, everybody. Looks like I was the one who misinterpreted.

Ok, since OS agrees with me, I realize I must be wrong on this. My thought had been that the main purpose of the POE was to do away with the Restricted Area mentality altogether. (Insert "Airplane" joke here.)

Here's basically how I was reading it: "As in any other situation, if you deem the contact to be insufficient to have legitimately displaced the defender, then it is still deemed incidental. But if the contact directly beneath the basket would have been called a charge at midcourt, then call it a charge!"

That may be an incorrect reading. I'm more than willing to hear alternatives.

This is a classic waffle! Don't call a foul if the defenders fakes a foul/flops! That's a damn technical! You see the waffle here. Either it is or it isn't! There is no in between or at least as far as officials are concerned, there shouldn't be. If you want consistency, it's a foul, one way or the other, period. There is no situation in which you are not putting air in the whistle here. If there is, then we are no better off than we where before.

You may not be so sure, but the committee has made this a POE for this year, which means they disagree with you.

From the 2007-08 NCAA Men's Points of Emphasis.
This year, the charge and block situations occurring at the basket area are
the points of emphasis.

I can't disagree with that.

Calm the f@ck down.

huh? :confused:

Did you even read the effin POE? Lack of severity simply means the defender is not put at a disadvantage by the offensive initiated contact. No one falls down, no one is knocked into the concession stand, and no one comes out with bruised ribs.
Dan nor the POE mention a defender faking or flopping, where the he!! did you get that from what was said?

What does the "under the basket" exception really mean?

2. When the defensive player has legally established a position under the
basket and contact occurs after the ball passes through the net, unless
the defensive player has been placed at a disadvantage (e.g., inability to
rebound, unable to put ball in play without delay.)

So when the defender is under the basket, after the ball passes through the net. Unless it's different in NCAA ball, then we've got an exception for contact after the ball becomes dead. If NCAA is like FED, then unless it's flagrant or intentional, we'd ignore this any time the ball became dead but there was contact afterward.

And with the specific mention of "after the ball passes through the net," then even if the defender is under the hoop, it doesn't preclude a charge if the contact is before the ball passes through the net.

So, as I read it, the two exceptions are roughly:

1) incidental contact (a no-call anywhere on the floor)
2) non-intentional, non-flagrant contact after the ball is dead (same as if it occurred anywhere on the floor).

Am I missing something?

I got it from the book. Here is a reprint, plus NevadaRef requoted it too in the OP. Why don't you read before typing?

1. The force of the contact by the offensive player is such that it is inconsequential, but the defensive player fakes a foul.

Now we're getting somewhere. Great point! No, you are not missing anything, in fact you may have helped me. Now I have a better understanding from a different prospective as to why it wasn't being called. I'm not so sure the ball or play is dead unless the last minute of the 2nd half after a made bucket. So the reasoning that the contact is to be ignored unless intentional or flagrant is a stretch. And we still have the problem of the flop which was intorduced this year. I don't know or understand how the heck they want us to call this!

I got more to add. i just got my men's NCAA mechanic manual in the mail. Page 13 Q&A with Hank Nichols.
Q: You've changed and communicated that a block/charge call in the lane on a drive to the basket becomes primary for the lead official. What is the reason for the change?
A: Sometimes the center official might get a better look, but I believe most of the time the lead official will have a great look at the play. Historically the philosophy of officiating dictates the the ref with the play coming toward him usually will have a better chance of getting the play called correctly.....

Hank feels that the lead making this call will make it more consistent. Doesn't really get to the heart of the matter here but I just thought I would add it.

Go back and read the POE, VI. Just before the part cited above that mentions a defensive player faking a foul, the POE says <i>"only when the following occurs, the penalty shall <b>NOT</b> be applied."</i> The penalty that they are talking about <b>NOT</b> applying is calling a personal foul for charging. There is no mention anywhere in the POE about calling a technical foul instead for faking being fouled. Aamof, can you cite an NCAA rule that says that it <b>is</b> a technical foul to fake being fouled?

Again, you simply don't understand what you are reading.

No, you <b>still</b> completely fail to understand very basic rules and concepts. The ball is dead immediately after a made basket <b>EVERY</b> time it happens at <b>ANY</b> time during the game. You're confusing stopping the clock with the ball becoming dead. Still. It's been explained to you...oh...maybe 20-30 times since you came here. It's like talking to a wall.

If words aren't getting the message across, perhaps a picture will.

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...s/banghead.gif

Dude, I wasn't born yesterday. The ball maybe dead but the clock is still running! Okay, if the clock is still running, I can still have a personal foul. For example: after a made bucket b4 grabs A4 trying to get free. Okay, using the block/charge reasoning we are discussing here, I am to let that foul go if it's not intentional or flagrant. Give me a break! Somebody please shut this fool up, he ruining the discussing. I'm trying to learn and you're playing grade school games.

B4 fouling A4 is a personal foul. If before all this, A1 drives in and shoots, and the ball goes in, and then there's contact to B1 standing under the basket. You're telling me we're ignoring this because it's not intentional? No wonder it's so damn inconsistent! I never reason this. I reason you can't play defense standing under the basket like it was last year with the women. Oh brother.....where are all the decent referee's?

What would you say if someone told you that he is right and that you are the fool? ;)

4-19-1 NOTE: Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne shooter.


6.1.2 SITUATION B: Team A has just scored a goal. The ball is bouncing close to the end line when: (a) A1 calls for a time-out; or (b) A1 contacts B1. RULING: In order to rule correctly, it depends on whether the bouncing ball is judged to be at the thrower's disposal. If the covering official judges it is at the thrower's disposal, he/she would start the count and the ball becomes live. In this case, in (a) no time-out is granted and the foul in (b) is penalized. If the ball is not at the thrower's disposal, the time-out is granted in (a) and the contact in (b) is ignored unless it is intentional or flagrant. COMMENT: In this situation, the covering official must give the new throw-in team a moment or two to recognize it is their ball for a throw-in and get a player into the area to pick up the ball. If the ball is near the end line, it is the throw-in team's responsibility to secure it and throw-in from anywhere out of bounds along the end line. The covering official shall start his/her throw-in count when it is determined the ball is available. (4-4-7d)

I was wrong. For some reason I thought it said "takes" a foul. I guess that means we've both been wrong in this thread.

That's what the rules say. If you have to call this foul when the ball is dead, you have to call an intentional (or flagrant, if appropriate) technical foul. Ignore the contact if you can.

Reading, understanding, and following the rules as written rather than as they'd like to see them written.

1) How does your theory work in the last minute of an NCAA game when the ball is dead after a made basket and the clock <b>isn't</b> running? Your birth date doesn't matter. Your lack of basic rules knowledge does matter.

2) deleted.

You can also have a foul when the ball is dead if the foul is on otr by an airborne shooter. IF the shooter commits the foul, this is a PC foul in FED and NCAA-W, and a common foul in NCAA-M.

This part of the POE is just helping us understand what is meant by "disadvantage" so we know whether to judge the contact to be a foul.

1) Okay -- STFU.

2) We've told you before the difference between "dead ball" and "clock running". Are you even trying to learn?

3) Please stop the name calling. I can't moderate others when you engage (and start) the poor behavior.

I went back and deleted my response. No longer applicable or needed. My apologies.

ROFLMAO!!!

NO!!! I hate to be an "I told you so" kind of person, but NO, he's not here to learn or contribute. I've said this repeatedly. His sole purpose here is to get so far under your skin that the moderator of the forum drops an F-bomb. He's getting his jollies. He needs to get the boot, and permanently this time.

Does that mean I can call him a moron and it won't get deleted this time? :D

Good heavens! Where is my head? (It's dark and smelly here). I know that, I really do. It's obviously time to hit the books for the upcoming season. Thanks, Bob. :o

I second this motion. He's not even the plucky comic relief. He's just a nuisance, and a very prolific one. He's like that jerk kid down the street who thinks it's cool to spraypaint grafitti on everybody's fence. He gets his jollies watching everybody else working to clean up his mess. And he just comes out the next night to deface the place again. Boot him. All the way. Forever!

I don't know what my birth date is got to do with this. I know that my rules knowledge is not as good as yours. However, the difference between me and you is that, if I was on top of my profession. I would not hate others for not being on top of there's. IOW's, I wouldn't feel threaten by someone like me who's trying to learn his way. I wouldn't engage in constant insults nor try to get others to feel the same way about me, iow's spread hate. Now I know why decent thinking referee's don't frequent this forum.

A wise man once said, true leaders understand you don't have to put people down to make a point. These type of leaders are respected thru-out history, the ladder are not.

Last, I have absolutely no respect for people who try to make others look bad at their expense. To me, you are truly the scum of the earth. Where does it end.....?

We are taking about refereeing, why all the hate, why all the criticism? It's because other forum members think they are above the law, above criticism. That they can not be wrong, or that others if wrong should be hated and account deleted because they interpret a ruling different or misunderstand a ruling. Goodness gracious, I can't be the first person in America that has interpret a ruling wrong or misapplied a ruling. It's not the end of the world if you kick a call. To often I hear hate coming from this professional official site. This forum is not setup for all officials, it is setup for certain officials. Not everyone is welcome.

I am sorry for #3, I have no idea what you're talking about on #2. I am disgraced for #1 because it shows your professionalism. I really wish the world was just one race so that we can all think alike and all get alone. Unfortunately, that is not the country we live in. I have told you before and i will tell you again. If you want to terminate my account, go right ahead. I'm not going to stop officiating because you don't like me, or accept me. Do what you feel is the right thing to do for your lilly white website here. I now know for sure that decent officials don't frequent this forum and now i know why. I will leave you with this, it's hard to try and tell someone to obey the rules when you don't obey them yourself.

When you first started posting, most of us tried to help -- giving respectful, accurate answers. You, however, have shown no inclination or ability to learn, and continue to spout incorrect rules under the guidance of "opinion."

If you don't have any respect for us, you should leave. Seriously.

You don't even know the definition of hate, so quit throwing it around like it's some sort of defense of your "opinions."

And again, no one is hounding you because you got a rule wrong. I'm sure you could go back and find quite a few times I've missed a rule or interpretation. If not, I could provide you some examples if I had the time.

The problem is, as Bob said, you've been shown the dead ball/live ball rule before. It's been explained that a personal foul cannot be called during a dead ball, including the short window from when the ball passes through the net and the ball is at the disposal of the non-scoring team. It has nothing to do with whether or not the clock is stopped, as you have plenty of live ball situations when the clock is stopped.

Assuming you meant "along" rather than "alone," (no, you can't blame the keyboard, the "e" key isn't close enough to the "g" key to try this), you can't possibly be serious. This may be the absolute most stupid thing you've ever posted.

Note, I'm not calling you stupid here. Just what you posted.

Exactly, where does it end?

Do we really have to put up with being labeled racists because we disagree with his nonsense?

About time.

See ya.

This is another thing. You keep bringing race into the discussion. Until you brought it up, no one knew who was what race. When this (race) has been brought up by other posters, they have had their account suspended / terminated. I supported that decision, and I'd support it happening again.

You learn by listening, not by talking. Ask questions, if you want to guess at an answer to someone else's question, say upfront "My guess is ...", then ask, "Am I right?" or the like.

When you are told you are wrong, don't argue, try to listen harder.

Order the rule books, case books, and videos from NFHS, officiate more games with good partners, and LISTEN!

A smart man knows his limitations. Only a fool ignores them.

Shhhh!

You are a wise man, Jim.

Ah, <B>that's</B> who VI's been quoting all this time.

Nope, but it should have been. I keep telling him he needs to fire his wise man, now we know whom he should hire.

How outrageous can you get! Until this post, I don't think I had even seen any indication of what race you were. I had never assumed you were a minority. It never crossed my mind.

The only thing I did know is that you have repeatedly made a fool of yourself with unwaivering insistence in erroneous interpretations and foolish ideas.


Your claim of racism requires that others know or think that you're not "lily white". I didn't and I'm sure many (perhaps all) others didn't....and for that matter, I still don't "know". Bogus arguments and accusations like yours make claims against real racism more difficult to address.

There are MANY officials that are not "lily white" who frequent this board and make positive and useful contributions. Aside from those that I personally know or 1 or 2 other people who have stated thier race, I don't even know what anyone's race is...and I don't care.

Sure racism exists...and it exists in officiating...but this is most certainly NOT one of those cases.

Probably right.

You would think you wouldn't need a background check on wise men, but it appears even that profession needs scrutiny.