What is that league teaching its officials?

[Back In The Saddle]

I've got a charge on this. The defender gets both feet on the floor in the path of the offensive player. Sure, he leaned a little. But he certainly did not create the contact, the offensive player barreled right through him.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I've got a charge on this. The defender gets both feet on the floor in the path of the offensive player. Sure, he leaned a little. But he certainly did not create the contact, the offensive player barreled right through him.

That's the same way that I see this play, but I guess that we have the minority opinion.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I've got a charge on this. The defender gets both feet on the floor in the path of the offensive player. Sure, he leaned a little. But he certainly did not create the contact, the offensive player barreled right through him.

No matter how you cut it, there was never more than 50% overlap of the torsos and the defender leaned to get as much as he did. Until just before the contact, you could see the offensive players numbers clearly and unobstructed. And with the offensive player's path carrying him to the inside relative to the camera angle, the actual amount of overlap was even less than it may have appeared from that camera angle. A player still moving in at the time of contact and getting, at best, 50% overlap is not in the path.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No matter how you cut it, there was never more than 50% overlap of the torsos and the defender leaned to get as much as he did. Until just before the contact, you could see the offensive players numbers clearly and unobstructed. And with the offensive player's path carrying him to the inside relative to the camera angle, the actual amount of overlap was even less than it may have appeared from that camera angle. A player still moving in at the time of contact and getting, at best, 50% overlap is not in the path.

Why isn't the defender allowed to still be moving at the time of contact in this situation? There doesn't appear to be any upward movement by the offensive player prior to the contact. Isn't the defender allowed to be moving, even by NBE standards, in the case of guarding an opponent moving on the floor?

How much in the path of the opponent must he be? 100%, 90%, 80%, etc. If some of his body is in the path of the opponent, isn't he in his opponent's path?

I've noticed from the videos on the website in which contact occurs on the side of the dribbler or the defender that these are labeled as blocking fouls.
However, no where in the text of the rules does it state this principle or articulate that the contact must be in the front of the torso for a charging foul. Perhaps that is the way that it is being taught at that level, but if so, the teaching doesn't match the text of the rules.

[CLH]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

However, no where in the text of the rules does it state this principle or articulate that the contact must be in the front of the torso for a charging foul. Perhaps that is the way that it is being taught at that level, but if so, the teaching doesn't match the text of the rules.

From a previous Nevada post...."I'm no NBA rules expert..."

Yet now you know what matches and doesn't match the text of NBA rules. Make up your mind, either you know the rules and the league officials aren't matching it, or perhaps you don't know the NBA rules and guidelines. Therefore you are no different than the millions of fans who THINK they know what is right and wrong in an NBA game and therefore decide it best to run down the league and its officials. I would expect this to be a no brainer, but if you are in the vast minority of an opinion, chances are pretty good that you're incorrect...just something I learned growing up on the farm FWIW.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by CLH

From a previous Nevada post...."I'm no NBA rules expert..."

Yet now you know what matches and doesn't match the text of NBA rules. Make up your mind, either you know the rules and the league officials aren't matching it, or perhaps you don't know the NBA rules and guidelines. Therefore you are no different than the millions of fans who THINK they know what is right and wrong in an NBA game and therefore decide it best to run down the league and its officials. I would expect this to be a no brainer, but if you are in the vast minority of an opinion, chances are pretty good that you're incorrect...just something I learned growing up on the farm FWIW.

Do you think maybe he went to the rule and checked before making that statement? Maybe, just maybe?

Now, if you can show us in the text of the NBA rule where it says what Nevada claims it doesn't say.....

....I'll be surprised.

[CLH]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Do you think maybe he went to the rule and checked before making that statement? Maybe, just maybe?

Now, if you can show us in the text of the NBA rule where it says what Nevada claims it doesn't say.....

....I'll be surprised.

Nah...he wouldn't do that...it's easier to just find somthing to b*tch about!

[Nevadaref]

The NBA rules book is online and available for anyone to read for free. So I've read it, and very recently in fact. However, that no more makes me an expert on the subject than reading Hamlet would make me an expert on Shakespeare.

The video clips are also available for anyone to view, so I've watched them.

I and anyone else can see that what is shown in the video doesn't match what is written in the rules book.

I have no idea about their guidelines and the specific instruction which is provided to their officials. I'm not someone who receives that stuff.

I have never called a game using NBA rules. Therefore, I have no experience with judging plays under them.

My only claim is that what they are showing doesn't match what they have written and publicly distributed.

Perhaps Mark Cuban will return to the forum and we can ask him.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why isn't the defender allowed to still be moving at the time of contact in this situation?

Because movement is a privilege of having LGP...which requires having already been in the path.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There doesn't appear to be any upward movement by the offensive player prior to the contact. Isn't the defender allowed to be moving, even by NBE standards, in the case of guarding an opponent moving on the floor?

Not unless they already established LGP...which I don't think this player did.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How much in the path of the opponent must he be? 100%, 90%, 80%, etc. If some of his body is in the path of the opponent, isn't he in his opponent's path?

More than getting his shoulder to the middle of the oppoenents torso while still moving in.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I've noticed from the videos on the website in which contact occurs on the side of the dribbler or the defender that these are labeled as blocking fouls.
However, no where in the text of the rules does it state this principle or articulate that the contact must be in the front of the torso for a charging foul. Perhaps that is the way that it is being taught at that level, but if so, the teaching doesn't match the text of the rules.

It is not about being on the side vs. front, it is about having the torso IN the path of the other player's torso....their (and many others') definition of the width of a player's "path" is obviously narrower than yours.

I don't see that this defender was ever in the path.

[Jay R]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why isn't the defender allowed to still be moving at the time of contact in this situation?

I agree that the defender can still move laterally. If he had taken one more step to his right and taken the contact more squarely in the chest, I think I would be more inclined to have a charge.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jay R

I agree that the defender can still move laterally. If he had taken one more step to his right and taken the contact more squarely in the chest, I think I would be more inclined to have a charge.

I agree....1 more step to the right and this would be a charge. (step being at least 1 foot or so).

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I've got a charge on this. The defender gets both feet on the floor in the path of the offensive player. Sure, he leaned a little. But he certainly did not create the contact, the offensive player barreled right through him.

I don't think you can have all of this and still not take the contact squarely in the chest. If the defender can make a play like this and have it called a charge, where would the line be drawn to make it a block? I think it would start to change from official to official, which brings me to my next point.

NBA officials might be highly "over-regimented", but they are way more consistent than high school or college officials. I think a high level of consistency is the goal - what makes up that consistency will forever be debated.

As a former Shaq fan (when he wore purple and gold) I would welcome all the calls against him when he allegedly runs someone over. However, then you would have to call all the fouls when someone is hanging off him. If this happened, he would shoot 20 free throws a game until an adjustment was made or he fouled out for running over people (whichever comes first). I think the end result would be 15 dunks per game for him; he can move his feet a little or at least he could in his younger days.

I'm in the camp that thinks it is hypocritical to say someone is dumping on college/high school officials then criticize NBA officials. I would hope the same people would be against politics in the work place, favoritism in associations, etc. since it is similar.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I'm in the camp that thinks it is hypocritical to say someone is dumping on college/high school officials then criticize NBA officials. I would hope the same people would be against politics in the work place, favoritism in associations, etc. since it is similar.

I agree with this statement the most.

Peace