Yet another Block vs. Charge Thread

[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)

[Dan_ref]

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)

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[egausch]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

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.
[/B]
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?

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.


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.
[B}

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

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?

EG

[egausch]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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

[Mark Padgett]

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.

[Slider]

Originally posted by egausch
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?

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?

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.

[Kelvin green]

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

[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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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

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.

[w_sohl]

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

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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

[bob jenkins]

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

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.

[w_sohl]

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.

[egausch]

Originally posted by egausch

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

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