What do you have???

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

.... if a block/charge play is too freaking close to call (which for guys at that level is rare) it is a block.

Gee, from the NBA games that I've seen, I coulda sworn that they went with the stars. If Kobe or LeBron was the shooter, it's a block. If Kobe or LeBron was the defender though, then it's a charge. The officials are really consistent that way.

I'll start to care about how the pros call a game when the pros actually start following their own rule book. Methinks that the same people training the Harlem Globetrotter officials are also training the NBA officials. Watching the LeBrons and Kobes of the world take 5-step layups over and over and over is absolutely ridiculous.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

1. There is no "favor-the-offense" pro philosophy, they just believe that the onus to be legal is on the defender and if he is not completely legal he must be penalized with a foul..... We are taught the history and reasonings behind the rules so that we better understand the concept. Our concept is that we have an RA cause the league has the belief that you are not playing legitimate defense if you are standing underneath the basket. if a block/charge play is too freaking close to call (which for guys at that level is rare) it is a block. The reasoning: we want players to keep attacking the basket and not be afraid so that the game ends up turning into a pull up jump shot fest.

Actually Ben the rest of your quote does in fact support the premise that the NBA has a "favor-the-offense" philosophy. But I already surmised that based upon a debate I had with one of your colleagues.

And based on my camp experiences, especially this summer, it seems the college philosophy is opposite--the observers I worked in front of seemed to want those 50/50 block/charge plays to go against the offense.

[mu4scott]

Here it is broken down to the best of my ability. I realize the photos are a little blurry, but it is what it is. I’m drawing the arrows in Microsoft paint so bear w/ me. There is a pole on the wall that is in each frame and you can clearly see the defensive player’s right shoulder in each shot as well. They will be the main reference points.

I’ll start w/ frame 2 and use frame 1 as just a starting off point.

Frame 2:

I think it’s pretty clear the offensive player is gathering himself to go up for the shot and is moving towards the basket. In my estimation he is taking one final step (left foot) and then going up. Note the defensive position of the player in green. His right shoulder from this angle is in line w/ the edge of the bleachers.

Frame 3:

The offensive player has started his ascension towards the basket. I believe he has planted off his left foot and his right foot is off the ground due to his knee being bent and it’s above his left leg. The defensive player has clearly changed his floor position and has moved towards the baseline.

Frame 4:

The offensive player looks to have both feet off the ground or very close to doing so. The ball is clearly above his head and he appears to be moving towards the basket. The defensive position of green has moved again in this frame. He has continued to move into the path of the shooter.

Frame 5:

This is the last frame before the offensive player releases the ball. If a person was not sure in frame 4 if the player had both feet off the ground then it’s very clear that is the case now. The defender continues to move his position on the floor. His body has moved further into the path of the now airborne shooter. I believe this is where the first contact occurs.

Frame 6:

Offensive player has released the ball and his body has distinctively different positioning. His feet are now starting to become parallel with the rest of his body. It appears this has happened because his waist has come in contact with the players left shoulder and head.



Blocking foul on green and two shots for white.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

1. There is no "favor-the-offense" pro philosophy, they just believe that the onus to be legal is on the defender and if he is not completely legal he must be penalized with a foul. Could you please reference some plays in which the defense is penalized even when the defender is completely legal in which the pros penalize the defender?

The mere fact that there is a RA around the basket is conclusive proof that the pro game favors the offense. Is there anywhere on the court that the call goes against the offense BY RULE? Nope.
I'm sure that if Yao Ming or Tim Duncan stood one foot in front of the rim with his arms held straight up that his defense could be pretty effective and deter opponents from dunking. Of course, the way the NBA rules are written if the offensive player recklessly runs down the lane and crashes into this stationary defender the foul is on the DEFENDER!!!
Why? The guy is doing nothing illegal other than being in a certain area of the court which the league has designated as off-limits.
You want another example of a league rule that favors the offense?
How about the league used to ban zone defense, and now has a DEFENSIVE three-second violation!!! The defenders cannot play whereever they wish. They have to move away from the basket to provide the offense with a better opportunity to score.
What else favors high-scoring games...hmmm....could it be a 24-second shot clock? No team can slow down the tempo and hold the ball. The team must attack or lose the ball.
Yep, the league wants POINTS. The league wants OFFENSE.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Do you know the reasoning behind why the NCAA wants either blocks or charges on close plays called or do they say? We are taught the history and reasonings behind the rules so that we better understand the concept. Our concept is that we have an RA cause the league has the belief that you are not playing legitimate defense if you are standing underneath the basket. believes that high-flying dunks sell tickets.

Since you are being awfully naive, I fixed it for you. I've already stated how someone could play "legitimate" defense from that area. The rule has NOTHING to do with defense. It has to do with dollars. The idea was to clear space in the lane, which the big guys were clogging up, to allow the wing players to slash to the goal for highlight-reel dunks. That is what the NBA desires--plain and simple. No dunks = No fans = No money.
Defenders in that area of the court could stop a lot of dunks, draw a ton of charges, and greatly deter the opponents from attacking the rim. So the NBA banned it.
You even admit that the NBA does not want a jump shooting contest. Too bad, because some of us believe that is the most beautiful part of the game.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The mere fact that there is a RA around the basket is conclusive proof that the pro game favors the offense. Is there anywhere on the court that the call goes against the offense BY RULE? Nope.
I'm sure that if Yao Ming or Tim Duncan stood one foot in front of the rim with his arms held straight up that his defense could be pretty effective and deter opponents from dunking. Of course, the way the NBA rules are written if the offensive player recklessly runs down the lane and crashes into this stationary defender the foul is on the DEFENDER!!!
Why? The guy is doing nothing illegal other than being in a certain area of the court which the league has designated as off-limits.
You want another example of a league rule that favors the offense?
How about the league used to ban zone defense, and now has a DEFENSIVE three-second violation!!! The defenders cannot play whereever they wish. They have to move away from the basket to provide the offense with a better opportunity to score.
What else favors high-scoring games...hmmm....could it be a 24-second shot clock? No team can slow down the tempo and hold the ball. The team must attack or lose the ball.
Yep, the league wants POINTS. The league wants OFFENSE.
Since you are being awfully naive, I fixed it for you. I've already stated how someone could play "legitimate" defense from that area. The rule has NOTHING to do with defense. It has to do with dollars. The idea was to clear space in the lane, which the big guys were clogging up, to allow the wing players to slash to the goal for highlight-reel dunks. That is what the NBA desires--plain and simple. No dunks = No fans = No money.
Defenders in that area of the court could stop a lot of dunks, draw a ton of charges, and greatly deter the opponents from attacking the rim. So the NBA banned it.
You even admit that the NBA does not want a jump shooting contest. Too bad, because some of us believe that is the most beautiful part of the game.

Sorry but not even tim or yao could keep an NBA! player from dunking if he is just STANDING in front of the rim. These guys are pure athletes. The best in basketball! Now it is still legal if tim or yao jumps vertically while being in the RA. The jumping cleanses them from the play being reffed as an RA block/charge.

I was not talking about "favor-the-offense" pro philosophy in terms of rules that have been put in place. someone was mentioning it in regards to fouls and how we always attempt to favor the offense on those plays.

Your accusations are correct. We want a lot of slashing, cutting/driving to the basket, and freedom of movement in our game which is more condusive to higher scoring games. The NBA made rules to aid in this.

you're right, a defender is not allowed to be in the RA, nor is a defender allowed to be in the paint without actively guarding somebody for more than 3seconds, its just like stepping out of bounds, you are not allowed to do it.

[observer]

see nothing
some incidential contac

[Tio]

Whoa! Looks like a really bad travel in the post.

Block on the crash. Defender was not set when offensive player began shooting motion.

May have been a goaltend by the secondary defender. It is hard to tell whether he contacted the ball or not.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Tio

Block on the crash. Defender was not set when offensive player began shooting motion.

I'm trying to quit picking on words, but this begs me to respond. He doesn't have to be set, he only needs to have LGP. Being "set" is coachspeak that only perpetuates misconceptions.

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Tio

Whoa! Looks like a really bad travel in the post.

Block on the crash. Defender was not set when offensive player began shooting motion.

May have been a goaltend by the secondary defender. It is hard to tell whether he contacted the ball or not.

The defender doesn’t have to have LGP (or be set as you put it) when the offensive player starts the shooting motion for a PC call. LGP has to be made and maintained before contactto get the charge.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Vinski

The defender doesn’t have to have LGP (or be set as you put it) when the offensive player starts the shooting motion for a PC call. LGP has to be made and maintained before contact the offensive player leaves the floor to get the charge.

Fixed it for you.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Tio

Block on the crash. Defender was not set when offensive player began shooting motion.

Sigh. Despite all the effort that some of us have put into this thread and many others, folks such as this continue to use fantasy standards to judge plays instead of the real rules.

Perhaps he can serve as an example of how not to do it and others can learn something from his errors.

I wonder if he went to the same "pro" training as btaylor.