'No-charge zone' approved in basketball

[Texas Aggie]

Will someone please explain why ANYBODY (coaches, fans, players, the man on the moon, whoever) would like this change?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Will someone please explain why ANYBODY (coaches, fans, players, the man on the moon, whoever) would like this change?

I don't like it, but some have this crazy notion that good defense is not played there by secondary defenders. As if simply being in the way is a bad defensive strategy, so they like the idea of legislating coaching technique.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Will someone please explain why ANYBODY (coaches, fans, players, the man on the moon, whoever) would like this change?

The philosophy is that more dunks and higher scoring games sell more tickets, and that earns the competing institutions more money.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The philosophy is that more dunks and higher scoring games sell more tickets, and that earns the competing institutions more money.

Exactly.

If the rule change comes to NFHS, it will be for the sake of consistency with higher levels, and not so much for the money (some schools make good money on basketball, but I don't think they'd see much of a bump from this rule change).

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Will someone please explain why ANYBODY (coaches, fans, players, the man on the moon, whoever) would like this change?

Because some say you aren't playing defense when you are under the basket.

[Brad]

From http:/bit.ly/2009ncaarulechanges

The announcement Monday means secondary defenders must establish position outside the area between the backboard and the front of the rim to draw a charge call.

I expect a lot of confusion from fans, coaches, players, and commentators on the "secondary" part. I fully expect to hear on TV in November that the new rule is that you cannot take a charge if you are under the basket.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Brad

From http:/bit.ly/2009ncaarulechanges



I expect a lot of confusion from fans, coaches, players, and commentators on the "secondary" part. I fully expect to hear on TV in November that the new rule is that you cannot take a charge if you are under the basket.

November, heck I've heard it already!

[Texas Aggie]

So is there an included definition of "secondary?" If a dribbler is out around the 3 point line, closely guarded, then blows by his defender with another defender switching on him around, say, the FT line, if the defender is still playing good defense but gets fouled under the basket, is it a no-call? Also, how much "under the basket" does a defender need to be? Partially? Fully? Just in the area?

If an offensive player can't drive to the hoop without contacting someone under the basket, that defender, is, by definition, playing defense. Its no worse defense than a defender near the division line guarding but not closely guarding a player. Why doesn't the offense get a free shot on this guy?

Totally stupid rule.

[todd66]

Just my opinion, but we would not need this rule, if officials (including myself) did a better job of calling this play a block or a charge. Many times I have seen officials not sure which it was so they just no call a play where contact would warrant a whistle. I beleive this is where coaches frustration comes from.

[Adam]

I disagree, as I think this rule change will likely lead to more no-calls on plays officials would have previously called a charge.

[todd66]

I agree this will lead to more no calls. I am saying that it is the no-calls that have led us to this point. This rule will do nothing to correct this.

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Will someone please explain why ANYBODY (coaches, fans, players, the man on the moon, whoever) would like this change?

Protects the move to the basket.

[amusedofficial]

I'm not very bright. Do I understand this correctly?

1. The NCAA basketball brass thinks play under the basket is too rough.

2. The way to make play under the basket less rough is to eliminate a type of foul from the rule book, namely offensive fouls committed against a secondary defender under the basket.

3. To compensate for eliminating offensive fouls committed against a secondary defender under the basket, we will now whistle a foul against a player for gaining legal guarding position in a small defined area of the lane if a player in control of the basketball decides to barrel into him in this small area of the court.

4. In the interests of reducing contact under the basket, offensive players are now justified in banging into a defender as long as that defender is in a "help" situation.

5. After about mid-January, Daddy will start demanding that this call or is be made in junior high school games.

Do I have this right?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

After about mid-January, Daddy will start demanding that this call be made in junior high school games.

amusedofficial: You are both bright, and right. The quoted part of your post (above) is what scares me the most, since I only officiate under NFHS rules. This may be a job that not even the Mythbusters can handle.

[David B]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

amusedofficial: You are both bright, and right. The quoted part of your post (above) is what scares me the most, since I only officiate under NFHS rules. This may be a job that not even the Mythbusters can handle.

And that will be a disaster trying to get HS school officials to call this consistently.

Its' hard enough in the NBA with full time employees who can watch every game back in slow mo replay to see if they missed it etc., And they have a very long season of 82 plus games to practice making the calls.

Have to admit, though the NBA officials are pretty consistent with this call now.

But it will be very hard on college officials, (especially with no markings on the floor) and not even possible at the HS level IMO.

Thanks
David