No I'm not.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kQFKtI6gn9Y&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kQFKtI6gn9Y&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

A defender is now standing under the basket and tries to take a charge. His torso is facing the offensive player and is stationary for 10 seconds. That will be called a block this year in the NCAA, as most of the time it was called a block anyways w/o that rule being implemented.

John Adams says how can a defender legally stop a person for scoring if he is trying to take a charge right beneath the basket. Now how can a person be legally trying to play defense on an offensive player with his back turned? No way he is trying to play defense. Don't say he was thrown off by the shot fake, from the 3 POINT LINE. If he bites on the shot fake and the guy drives and he is still standing there waiting for the rebound after 20 ft of court covered, and not a single one of his teammates says something to him, or he hears the ball on the floor, or some commotion going on, your still going to reward him with a charge?

Damn right. You're going to reward the offensive player for running over a stationary opponent? And the NCAA rule is not applicable unless this player is in that asinine unmarked "restricted zone" or whatever the hell it's called.

The charge is not a reward for the defense so much as a punishment for the offense.

And that is why they put that zone in there, because they found that you can no way in hell stop an offensive player from scoring at that point, but yet you can stop someone from scoring by being a terrible defensive player and having your back turned to him?

I guess we all have a difference in opinions. I can say that whatever you call either a block/charge, your explanation to the coach will usually work. Just make sure you call the same block/charge on the other end.

And I don't give a crap about the explanation to the coach. Try giving that explanation to a coach who knows the rule (his player is entitled to that spot on the floor) and see how high the complaints go, then try giving it to your assigner or the state.

Move the players out a bit and tell me what you have. A1 dribbling up the court, roughly at the midcourt line. B2 is guarding A2 near the sideline, fronting him to prevent a pass (with his back to the ball) but standing still while A1 plows into him.

Or you could move it into the paint, with B2 fronting A2 while A1 drives instead of passing and crashes into a stationary B2.

I understand the logic of the restricted zone, even though I disagree with it; but the rule here is very explicit in granting each player a spot on the floor (except those rule sets that utilize the restricted zone) as long as he gets there first. LGP isn't even a consideration here.

So MO...If the offense initiates contact on a stationary defender (who has his back turned) you are going to call a block? Just want to make sure I'm understanding your stance on the situation

-Josh

This ain’t got nothin’ to do with opinions. It’s a rule.
4-20-23
ART. 1 . . . Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard and opponent, but the maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded. Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

Then why are we calling it a block if a defender is under the basket? Because there is no way he can defend an offensive player under there, how is one expected to defender a player with his back to the offensive player? The kid is not even playing defense, lets go ahead and reward bad defense.

I'm going with what John Adams has said in the very room I was sitting. Defensive players job is to stop an offensive player. Not much defense going on with their back to the offense.

Yes I will call it a block

Because the rule very specifically states that area (NCAA) is an exception. Defense is actually being played in my last two scenarios, just not on the player with the ball. Are you saying that's not valid, and that somehow a very specific NCAA and NBA rule which does not apply to this situation gives you cause to ignore another very specific rule which states a player is entitled to his spot on the floor?

And you can name drop all you want, it doesn't cover the holes in your logic.

In NCAA and NBA the restricted zone is a different story and has nothing to do with who the defender is looking at. In the zone it’s a block. It’s block because the rule says it’s a block and like you said, the ball is more than likely going in regardless of the crash. So if defender knows he is going to get the block call, the percentage of crashes will diminish.

Apples and Oranges.
What if it’s a matter of a kid guarding an off ball player? Do we as official have to identify what the defender’s intent was or whether it was good defense or not? Just because a kid is not facing the ball handler does not give any other player the right to run over him because we “think” he is playing bad defense. Heck, half the kids we ref play bad defense. How do we judge good defense. We judge contact, not the quality of defense.

Good luck with that.

I'm glad to hear you were in the very room Mr. Adams was when he was talking. It's too bad you weren't paying attention to what he said.

First of all, as pointed out before, this rule change and philosophy only applies to NCAA-M, not NCAA-W or NFHS. More importantly, the rule involves a secondary defender not being able to obtain initial legal guarding position while positioned in the unmarked area directly under the basket. The rule does not say, and Mr. Adams did not say, that all contact with a defender under the basket can never be called a charge. In fact, the reason for this rule is to prevent a secondary defender from coming over on a drive and trying to obtain initial LGP while standing directly under the basket and taking the contact. It does not remove any of the other principles of a player being entitled to a spot on the floor if they get there first, and does not give the offensive player the "right" to run over any defender who is not looking at them.

In the initial play, the OP did not state whether the defender B2 was under the basket, only that they turned away from A1 to look for the rebound. But, in this play, this would be still be a charge under NCAA-W and NFHS rules, as well as the new NCAA-M interpretation.

Cool, so I suppose you have never called any rebounding fouls on players from behind, as the player who is legally blocking out certainly can't be "playing defense" since their back is to the opponent? :rolleyes:

You obviously have your own philosophy as to how the game should be called. Unfortunately it differs from how the rule makers want it to be called.

Because "under the basket" is now defined in NCAAM as not a spot the defender can get to legally first. It's just like having a foot OOB while "taking a charge." It doesn't change the rules on the rest of the floor.

Setting aside MO's apparent misrepresentation of what was actually said...

The difference between a defender under the basket, and one away from the basket but with his back turned, is fundamental. Or definitional, to invent a word. :D

"Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent."

Under the basket, you're not in your opponent's path. He's going to the basket. You are not preventing him from going there.

Out front, however, the mere act of being between your opponent and where he wants to go disrupts his ability to get there. You are in his path. That you could defend more effectively if you were facing your opponent does not change that.

Am I being over simplified to just think of this situation as, "who initiated the contact?" To me (and correct me if I'm wrong) this situation equates to the following situation:

A1 is holding the ball outside the three point line. A1 fakes a shot attempt and B1 jumps to block the apparent try. Realizing B1 is up in the air, A1 jumps into the airborne B1 in an attempt to "draw a foul". (Clarification: If B1 were allowed to land, no contact would have been made.)

In this situation I am going to judge who initiated contact. If A1 goes out of his way (not his natural shooting motion) to initiate contact, I am not going to reward him.

Tying it back to the OP, I am not going to reward the offense for initiating contact on an opponent.

Again, let me know if I'm off my rocker here.

-Josh