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)

Wha? OK, I'l try:

1. The block/charge is a source of much discussion simply
because it emphasises a basic problem in officiating
basketball. Who fouled who (whom?) is sometimes a matter
of your perspective. So we work hard at staying in our
primaries, communicating with partners, etc, all that
good stuff. A blarge means a complete breakdown, sorta
like your shooting guard drilling a 25 footer into your
opponent's basket.

2. The rules do not "encourage" contact, they just specify
what contact is legal and what is not. Of course they
then take a huge eraser and completely blur the line between
these two with advantage/disavantage, but that's OK.

3. Maybe I haven't been at this long enough but I do not
recall a time when time & distance was to be used when
determining block/charge and torso to torso contact involving the player with the ball.

4. Officials are encouraged to use judgement at all times
when looking at contact, see my comment #2.

Time and distance only applies when a defensive player obtains (NFHS)/establishes (NCAA/FIBA) a legal guarding position against an offensive player who does not have control of the ball and for any player setting a screen against another player.

Time and distance does not apply when a defensive player obtains/establishes a legal guarding position against an offensive player in control of the ball except that a defensive player who attempts to obtain/establish a legal guarding against an offensive airborne player in control of the ball must secure his position before the offensive player becomes airborne.

Time and distance is not requirement for obtaining/establishing a legal guarding position against an offensive player in control of the ball because any player in control of the ball must expect to be guarded from the moment he gains control of the ball. An offensive player without the ball has a reasonable expectation of not always being guarded.

I think that this should clear up any confusion about time and distance is to be applied in guarding and screening situations.

EG

Hmmmm! This is interesting stuff and an insight I hadn't heard before. I think I like this, but I'll have to chew on it a while longer. :) Sort of implies that the offensive player with the ball, "must expect" that a defender could jump in front of him at anytime and that he, the player with the ball, is responsible for any contact whether he can avoid it or not. Hmmmmm.....chew...chew...chew
EG

Geez guys - what ever happened to the very simple guideline on the block/charge of "did he beat him to the spot"? It worked for both sides.

EG [/B][/QUOTE]I think Mark Sr. stated the concept eloquently.

This is not an unfair advantage, IMO. The dribbler is expected to be under control, looking around. Makes sense to me.

I agree with what has been said. No where in the rules is contact encouraged. Contact is either legal or not. Sometimes we have to make the judgement call on who realyy was legal and who wasnt. The gray area is when both players had terrible position etc.

I think a better term for player control foul is player out of control foul. Most of the times when there is a PC it is when the offense is out of control. The rules (by stating there is no time and distance) mena that a person with the ball must be in control at all times and must be ready to be defended at any moment.

The idea of defense is to stop the player with the ball from scoring the offense better expect something to be thrown at them. If the offense can't react too bad. They foul and turnover the ball.

There is no unfair advanatge if the defense jumps in at the last minute because the rules committe has defined it as fair. Dont get wrapped up in somesort of unfair advantage thing. If player gets in front and beats them to the spot, they got their first, it's a charge.The rules committee wrote the rules and until we change them, we enforce them.

It does not matter what the coaches encourage, coaches will use the rules to their advantage and if they dont then they probably should not be coaching.

If there are only 4 seconds on the clock in a one point game I dont have to inbound the ball ( if clock is running)...

I foul to stop the clock...

I call timeout after my team just scored a made basket.

I take the full 30 seconds to replace a disqualified player.

I take two timeouts in a row.

I had players interlock on defense because the rules didnot prevent it, but now they do.

I run a stack parallel to the baseline but far enough away.

I run a stack perpendicular to the basleline any where I want to.

Do coaches try and manipulate rules... YEP and many times the rules have changed... Remember Jimmie Valvano? But as long as we call the rule, if it is unfair somebody will complain

Block vs Charge
 

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

Re: Block vs Charge
 

I know that I am going to take some (probably a lot) of flack, but this is foul on A1. Whether B1 flops or not he is entitled to his spot on the floor. His "flopping" was in anticipation of getting hit by A1 and B1 was hit by A1.

Re: Block vs Charge
 

I personally would have a no call and tell the kid to get up. Inform him that by flopping he is not only not going to get the call but he is also putting his team at a disadvantage because he is no longer in position to defend the ball handler who now probably has a clean lane to the basket. If they continue to flop I have heard alot of officials say that they just start calling a block if any contact occurs.

Either way, the kid is not helping himself or the team by flopping.

Re: Re: Block vs Charge
 

Mark is correct under FED Casebook 10-6-1D.Personally,I'd probably no-call it.

Re: Block vs Charge
 

If B has flopped so much that he's on the ground before any contact, then I do not ahve a foul.

If he anticipates contact, is moving backwards, but there is contact and A keeps moving forward, then I have a PC foul.

A player does not have to be completely stationary to draw a charge. A player is allowed to protect or brace themselves for impact. Turning their shoulders to brace for impact for example is legal.

Done chewing now!
 

My intent on this topic was to create some discussion on the, validity of and basis behind, the rules concerning block/charge. My confusion is not from the interpretation of the rules or how to enforce/use them. This may be an inapropriate topic for this forum and better presented to rules committees, etc. Replys to the effect of 'because the rules say so" was not what I was hoping for.
Looking outside the "rules are the rules" box, it seems to me, these rules do not adequately decide the call where B1 jumps in front of A1 at the last second, drawing the charge. The rules should resolve this to a block, IMO. If A1 is running and dribbling and B1 jumps in front, it's physically impossible for A1 to avoid the contact. I don't believe this is equivalent to A1 being out of control. Further, the only way A1 can avoid this "expected" contact is to not run at all! Not exactly what basketball is about. Running in many ways is the same as jumping. Both feet are off the ground for a large part of the time. Verticallity covers the jumper when in the air. Running is like horizontal jumping, if you will. How can a running dribbler be expected to stop on a dime when in the air? Maybe there should be some sort of horizontallity definition :).The rules need to provide more guidance, then simply who got their first, etc. Ruling this a charge just doesn't make much common sense to me and likely causes others to be confused as well.
When a defender jumps in front, at the last second, he's attempting to stop the advancing of the ball and also trying to draw the charge. The former can easily be accomplished by establishing a position in the path of the dribbler that also gives the dribbler a reasonable amount of time and distance to stop or change direction. The defender can still move laterally to stop the advancing of the ball.
The only real purpose of jumping in front is to create contact and draw the foul, which is completely within the rules. Players know it, coaches know it, everyone knows it. It completely goes against the current POEs concerning rough play in general.
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

Re: Done chewing now!
 

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Re: Block vs Charge
 

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

RD

Re: Re: Block vs Charge
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: Block vs Charge
 

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Block vs Charge
 

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.

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

The dark side
 

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."

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.

Re: The dark side
 

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

Mark

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

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.