Yet another Block vs. Charge Thread

[Slider]

Originally posted by egausch
I've seen some bad injurys as a result of this kind of "legal" defense. I'm sure most of you have too.
The rules do a lousy of job of preventing this type of contact, IMO. I see this as the same as encouraging it.
EG [/B]

I've seen bad injuries in all kinds of situations; we should outlaw basketball.

[Kelvin green]

Where would draw the line on what is block and what is a charge? I have reffed many different levels of play from 3rd grade players to pro players and they are all taught to get position. Take the ability to get poistion and you have taken defense out of the game!

What is a reasonable amount of time to stop for a dribbler? I would suggest that the current rule is closer to
reasonable time and distance than you would think.

I will first disagree that running is horizontal jumping and that players. Running is running and just like a can on the Interstate you must keep your distance and know what's going on. Knowing what's ahead is the responsibility of driving. (Very few times with a vehicle is the person moving not cited when there is a wreck. It happens sometimes but that is left to a judge and jury, and experts who have thousands of hous to discuss reaction time, pavement coefficients, rates of speed etc.)

If a player jumps horizontally it is already covered by the book.
It is the rule that everyone is entitled to the spot if they were there first. So if a player jumps while moving forward we have to determine who was at the spot first. A because they took off (which entitles them to a spot to come down) and that spot was not occupied by B. or B occupied the spot.
What kind of can of worms would you it create if you had a rule on horizontal jumping that A is entitled to their spot they would come down on plus 3 feet or six feet, or one step or two steps? B1 is playing good defense against A2. A1 leaps and collides with B1 who has his back to A1, but A was entitled to the spot he jumped from plus oh let's say the rule stated three feet. Well B1 is in that three foot space and contact occurs so the foul is now on B1.

Let the jumper go up and if he makes contact with someone it's not the jumper's fault, He was running and jumped and now the rule assumes that he has a right to come down anywhere on the floor. You could not play defense

What's a reasonable amount of time to stop and change direction? If it's a point guard who is quick even giving the point guard one step gives the offense a great big advantage? Two steps let's not have any defense on the drive. If you have talented players giving them any allowance to stop gives an overwhelming advantage to the offense. Even the screening rules dont provide much relief because if the screen is set within the visual limits of the person there is no step. It's the blind picks that give the distance.

A defensive player is guarding A1 and is staying with A1, and is moving with him. B1 takes the step laterally and cuts of A1's attempt to the basket. It's a split second thing he was there first. If you give A even one third of a step A is around and scored. What type of time and distance do you allow when they are guarding closely? It doesnt work ...He has to be set for 1 or 2 or 3 seconds? That's what some of the howler monkeys' still yell.. He has to be set??? Listen to the howler monkeys roar!

The purpose of jumping in front of the player with the ball is to stop the ball. There are very few people who will tell you they do it to get the contact. They may want to draw the foul and the price to pay for this kind of defense is you'll get blown over. ( but it's the drive that is going for the two points to win the State championship so yes I'd step up and take the charge.

[egausch]

Originally posted by Kelvin green
Where would draw the line on what is block and what is a charge?

What is a reasonable amount of time to stop for a dribbler? I would suggest that the current rule is closer to
reasonable time and distance than you would think.

I will first disagree that running is horizontal jumping and that players. Running is running and just like a can on the Interstate you must keep your distance and know what's going on.

If a player jumps horizontally it is already covered by the book.
It is the rule that everyone is entitled to the spot if they were there first. So if a player jumps while moving forward we have to determine who was at the spot first. A because they took off (which entitles them to a spot to come down) and that spot was not occupied by B. or B occupied the spot.

Let the jumper go up and if he makes contact with someone it's not the jumper's fault, He was running and jumped and now the rule assumes that he has a right to come down anywhere on the floor. You could not play defense

What's a reasonable amount of time to stop and change direction?

The purpose of jumping in front of the player with the ball is to stop the ball. There are very few people who will tell you they do it to get the contact.

These are excellent points and I think you've hit on something that could establish a reasonable time and distance. It would also satisfy my common sense. (Which may not be so common after all!) I agree there isn't a specific time and/or distance that would satisfy all cases. Say 1 or 2 or 3 sec. or 3ft or 6ft. And to phrase a rule with "reasonable time and distance" may open too many of those can 'o worms. I don't agree it's like a can or is it car on the interstate. More like driving through a herd of deer. But that's another topic and I also think there are more than a few people who do it for the contact. Hmmm. Sounds interesting.
Anyway, more to the point, I know this is not what the rules state, but based on your comments regarding horizontal jumping, how would you feel about a rule change that stated the dribbler is entitled to the spot that his foot would naturely come down to and the space between that and his last step? This would help to avoid those impossible to avoid collisions, and still allow for tight D.
EG

[Kelvin green]

But how big is that one step. He already has the right to come down. But if you add a step requirement, any other dufus on the floor could committ a foul just by being in the wrong place playing good ball. Then you have to decide what one step is, if he if 3'nothing then you are taling 6" if the player is 6'10" then you are talking about 3 and 1/2 feet. There would be absolutely no consistency, and personally this would encourage the offense to try and get the foul by trying to jump into more players tahn they already do.

If a player is entitled to a spot on the floor then all players are entitled to the spot on the floor. We cant give a guy in the air the spot plus an additional area to come down in, that takes away the spot if somone is already there.

Naw keep it the way it is. It's a short sweet basic fundamental.

[Dan_ref]

Fair enough. Rules don't encourage. But wouldn't you agree that coaches encourage defenders to "take the charge" and "draw the foul" because the rules dictate that if the defender jumps in front of an offensive ball handler at the last possible nanosecond, with good position, any contact goes against the offense?



What do I or anyone else care what the coaches encourage?
Coaches "encourage" low post moves that are actually
travels, they "encourage" box outs that are actually
holds and pushes, does that make it legal? "Take the
charge" and "draw the fouls" are coachisms not found in the
rules.



About three years ago I contested a call and the official commented that the rules had changed and time and distance no longer applied. I could be mis-informed.


You're misinformed.




OK, considering your #2 and #4, then, if B1 jumps in front of A1, who has the ball, at the last possible moment in a legal guarding position. And in your judgement A1, could not have avoided the contact, what do you have? Charge, because it satisfies the rules, or block because the defense created an unfair advantage/disadvantage? Further, if you say you'd have to see the play, what else would you look for in order to make the call?


Charge, assuming B1 had legal guarding position and he
did not move into the ball handler.

You are over thinking this, block/charge is maybe the
easist call to make in the game if you know what to
look for.

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by thomasanderson
Request your opinions on following play. A1 drives to basket. B1 has legal guarding position and is set to take the charge but flops before contact. A1 continues his shooting movement and makes basket and then lands or falls on B1 who is prone on the floor.NFHS THANKS

Ball has gone through the basket...dead ball...then A1 lands on B1...the contact is neither intentional or flagrant...NO CALL.

RD

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by RookieDude

Ball has gone through the basket...dead ball...then A1 lands on B1...the contact is neither intentional or flagrant...NO CALL.

RD

You've only got part of the exception -- it also applies to a foul on or by an airborne shooter, and that's A1 in this case. Whether the ball was dead should not be a consideration in this case.

[Bart Tyson]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

You've only got part of the exception -- it also applies to a foul on or by an airborne shooter, and that's A1 in this case. Whether the ball was dead should not be a consideration in this case.

Bob, Are you saying you would call a PC on this play?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson

Bob, Are you saying you would call a PC on this play?

Of course not. I already answered the original question,and I stand by my answer.

I was only pointing out that RookieDude's resoning was incorrect according to the rules.

[Bart Tyson]

Thanks Bob, for a minute i thought you went over to the Dark side.

[Kelvin green]

Wait! Wait one minute! The Dark side would never call this PC. In fact the player was standing under the basket when he flopped so there would never be a PC foul.

So if youre going to accuse Bob of joining the dark side at least get your accusation right Otherwise it makes those of us who are card carrying members or those who dabble with those evil forces look bad. After all the Dark side does have some sort of reputation it needs to uphold.

Besides at least in my dark side chapter we would never call this PC. I think official ruling 9.01-765 from the from local chapter's Dark side manual reads. "whenever a player who had legal guarding position does not have enough fortitude to take the charge flops, and this flop like a dead fish then subsequently causes contact with the offensive player, this is ruled a block if in the opinion of he official that the player should be penalized for being stupid, otherwise this is a no call."

[Bart Tyson]

Its funny you mention it. I had a feeling i would get some flack. When i was 1st typing I did type light side. I changed it because i was speaking of the dark side on this specific play. I couldn't even imagine the light side would call this a PC. So, pleassssse don't take Offense, no pun intended, I was not talking about the Dark side of the fence.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Kelvin green
Wait! Wait one minute! The Dark side would never call this PC. In fact the player was standing under the basket when he flopped so there would never be a PC foul.

So if youre going to accuse Bob of joining the dark side at least get your accusation right Otherwise it makes those of us who are card carrying members or those who dabble with those evil forces look bad. After all the Dark side does have some sort of reputation it needs to uphold.

Besides at least in my dark side chapter we would never call this PC. I think official ruling 9.01-765 from the from local chapter's Dark side manual reads. "whenever a player who had legal guarding position does not have enough fortitude to take the charge flops, and this flop like a dead fish then subsequently causes contact with the offensive player, this is ruled a block if in the opinion of he official that the player should be penalized for being stupid, otherwise this is a no call."

Just because the defender is standing under the basket does not mean you cannot have a player control foul under NFHS rules.

[Kelvin green]

Mark

Dont go down that road. we have all been there, done that, bought the T-shirt, and beat it to death

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by egausch
The Blarge (or is it Chock ) call certainly consumes a lot of forum bandwidth. Yet the current rules (NFHS) appear to be very clear. We all know the appropriate sections so I won't repeat them. Setting aside the "Where on the court did it occur?" issue, why is there such confusion?
As a continuation of a previous reply, it seems to me that "time and distance" have a definate bearing on who has the "greater responsibility", when a defensive player takes a "legal guarding position" directly in the offensive player's path. Yet the rules clearly state if the defense is there first with legal position, the greater responsibility is on the offense to avoid the contact. But reaction times are finite! Many times the offense can't possibly avoid the contact. The rules seem to encourage contact with the benefit of getting opposing players in foul trouble. Does this seemingly unbalanced situation contribute to the confusion?
Considering this, my main question is to the veterans out there. It used to be that "time and distance" DID matter. Why did the rules folks change it?
Without this, officials have no room to apply their best judgement to these calls. Our legal system is full of words like "reasonable"..., granting jurys and judges the necessary room to use their best judgement.
Signed,
Confused (EG)

Coach,

I've thought about this a lot, too, and I see your point very clearly. Here's how I think about it: Taking the charge in the fraction-of-a-second type of play is extremely difficult to pull off. You will rarely see it happen more than once or twice in a game, because it's not all that possible to get to the spot in postion, without the dribbler seeing you headed there so that he can change direction. Remember, the defender isn't just materializing in the path of the dribbler with no apparent warning. If the dribbler has his eyes up at all, he should see it coming, and at least hesitate. I think the "risk" is about even on both sides.