Block/Charge/No Call
 

Situation 1

A1 fakes 3 pt shot and drives to the basket. B2, thinking a shot was taking place, has turned his back to A1. A1, driving to the basket, makes contact with B2 (whose back is to the play) and B2 goes to the floor. Think of it as a block/charge play, only B1 is facing the basket instead of defending A1. What would you have?

Situation 2

A1 drives to the basket. B1 has legal guarding position and appears prepared to take a charge. A1 changes path of drive and contact occurs with the shoulder of B1 while attempting the shot. What would you call?

Regarding situation 1, does the defender lose LGP when he turns his back? I think it's either block or no call, because the contact isn't to the defender's torso.

For Sit. 2, assuming the defender doesn't move laterally when A1 avoids contact, I have no call.

LGP is not a consideration in this play.

LGP has nothing to do with it. Every player is entitled to a spot on the floor, provided he obtained that space legally. There's nothing in the OP to indicate B2 did anything illegal. If the contact constitutes a foul, the foul is on A1.

In situation 2, if the contact constitutes a foul, the foul is on A1. If not, it's nothing. There is no yes or no answer. It's a judgment call that you mkae based on what you see.

100 percent agree...

In situation 1 why would you ever call it a block. As mentioned before LGP has nothing to do with this. They guy, anticipating a shot, maybe trying to get in position for a rebound and gets run over by A1.

In situation 2 why would you ever penalize a defender for playing legitimate defense? If he has position and A does something ... we penalize B?

Both of these plays though reiterate the necessity of seeing the whole play and refereeing the defense.

Situation 1

Very tough play, something has to be called on it... A no call is going to be disaster at any level.

My take on it: If it is the defenders job to legally stop he offensive player from scoring, how in the world does a defender stop the offensive player when his back is turned to him going up to the rim, unless he has eyes in the back of his head.

Man up and take a real charge.

Seriously?! He thought a shot was up and turned around to watch for the rebound and box out. This is a real charge, so call it that way. There is no requirement that a player face his opponent while standing still.

It's the offensive player's responsibility to know where the defenders are and not run them over. This is obviously the offensive player's responsibility.

And you have the benefit of the rule to back you up on it.

Do you even tell the girls this? :rolleyes:

So, are you saying because the defense was not facing the offensive player (like a man), you would call a block?

What if he does not work girl's games? :D

That being said I still think LGP could apply if I am reading this right. But it is not the only factor as it never has to be in these situations.

Peace

Even so, he might still tell them that. :eek: :D

It doesn't apply in this sit, as the defender thought there was a shot and turned to face the basket for the blockout/rebound. In this case, even though the defender was no longer guarding, they are still entitled to their spot on the floor, and the offense has no addtional rights in any contact. Even if that wasn't the case, it's obvious MOofficial was stating the offensive player should not be charged with a foul because the defender wasn't "man enough" to face the offense. We both know that directly contradicts the rule on guarding, 4-23-3(e), "The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact."

It was not clear in the OP what way the defender was facing. I am just saying it could apply, but that does not mean it is the only factor. You can maintain LGP by turning and moving. You never have to face an opponent to stay legal. And my comments really were not about MOofficial in the first place. I just take a slight issue that the defender in this case could not be in LGP.

Peace

:eek: ;)

Then we agree. Damn, what fun is that? :D

This seems to be happening to you a lot. Good thing the season is coming soon. :cool:

I don't agree.

(Season's almost here!...)

:D

Now you're just trying to be disagreeable.

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

No, you are indeed firmly on your rocker.

Rock on! :D

Were the original situations NCAA situations? If not, who gives a cr@p what John Adams says?

It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong today. (Reference: http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post630958) Sometimes I need a reality check

-Josh

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?

...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).

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...