What is that league teaching its officials?

[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).