Block/Charge/No Call

[MOofficial]

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MOofficial

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.

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by MOofficial

Then why are we calling it a block if a defender is under the basket?

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.

Originally Posted by MOofficial

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MOofficial

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

Good luck with that.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by MOofficial

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

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.

Originally Posted by MOofficial

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.

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?

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MOofficial

Then why are we calling it a block if a defender is under the basket?

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

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.

"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.

[jdmara]

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by jdmara

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

No, you are indeed firmly on your rocker.

Rock on!

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

No, you are indeed firmly on your rocker.

Rock on!

It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong today. (Reference: Iowa Girls Experimentation with two halves) Sometimes I need a reality check

-Josh

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

...noting that the above only applies to secondary defenders, not primary defenders...and that the OOB foot issue only applies to LGP situations...

Neither rule gives the offensive team carte blanche to bowl over an opponent just because they are under the basket (they must be a secondary defender) or because they're OOB (the foul must depend on LGP..which the OOB player doesn't have).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by MOofficial

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

MO, how many players are there on the team with the ball? Is B2 only able to defend A1 or can B2 actually be defending someone else...denying them the ball?

By A1 running into the back of B2, A1 has prevented B2 from defending A2 or from getting a position for a rebound.

The problem with your position is that it opens a nasty can of worms. By your standard, the offense, in order to draw a foul on the defense, only has to find a defender with their back turned and crash into them....anywhere on the floor. How do you think that is going to work out?

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by MOofficial

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

Call it a block... and you will be calling it wrong. NFHS specifically has stated there is no resticted area, playing basketball underneath the basket is no different than playing basketball anywhere else on the floor....

Videotape is so prevalent at a ball games now I will not want to be the one that has the videotape sent in and have the call be obvious and have someone else see it... If the coach knows the rule try to explain "but coach he was under the basket he cant take a charge"....The coach will know you are wrong.... You have lost all credibility the rest of the game. Coaches question us all the time. Judgment has angles, perspective... Getting a rule wrong is something we never want to get wrong and we have the ultimate control over that...