Changing what was a charge (maybe little called) in to a block is a flip. Same action, opposite call after the rule change. Not sure what else you could call it.

I don't disagree that it may be a good rule but the stated goal (reducing collisions under the basket) could have been accomplished by calling the charges by the rules that were there before. Either way would have the same effect. The only difference is that RA rules shift the balance to more favor offense...and in a way that generally provides more entertainment value. Which is better was not my point, just that the RA wasn't really necessary for the advertised goal.

And you don't believe that calling charges would have reduce the collisions? Foul calls have always served to discourage certain actions. It doesn't completely prevent them, but, just like the RA, it just discourages them....all for the same reason...players don't want to be called for a foul if they can help it.

I know that on many charges I do call for dribblers driving too far into the lane where the defense had cut off the path, the coach chews them out for not pulling up for a short jumper or taking a different action. They do it again and, with most coaches, they get to ride the pine for the rest of the half.

I'd probably do the same, but, what was called was not outside the bounds of the rules to call what he did.

Sorry, you're right that that is what you meant. Just wanted to make sure I clarified for others.

I will say, that for whatever reason, the majority of rules code have decided they don't want defenders setting up right in front of the rim for the sole purpose of trying to take a charge. The only rule set that allows a defender to do so now is NFHS. FIBA (not 100 percent like the NBA rules but similar enough), NCAA (very similar to the NBA rules) on both sides have an RA rule.

I wouldn't be surprised if in 5-10 years, NFHS followed suit.

For me, it's the question of "Is it good defense for a secondary defender to set up in a position where the driving player flattens him on the way down for the sole purpose of trying to draw a charge call?"


In my mind, the answer is "No, it isn't." I'm a fan of the RA, myself. I don't hesitate to call PC fouls in NFHS games now, but to me being a secondary defender and putting yourself in a spot where the player is going to land (or almost land) isn't playing good defense and the NCAA has recognized that.

I'd like to see an NFHS RA, but only if they draw it on the court. The NCAA having an invisible box last season was a disaster, IMO.

I'm with you Rich, putting this absolute in the game would make our jobs a little easier.

I disagree with that. Our jobs are quite easy now. If a defender gets a spot before the shooter is airborne it's a charge, *every time*. With the RA, you have to know quite a bit more -- it's not an absolute "no charge" area and actually requires a bit more judgment on the officials' part.

Another thing I noticed is that the trail lacked a closely guarded count.

Why is it that the interesting stuff is coming out of Houston these days? :eek:

I'm also wondering what chapter covered this game because all of the chapters I'm familiar with around here wear grey shirts for varsity games.

This is a clean dunk. I have the shooter jumping over the defender with marginal contact on the dunk follow-through.

The techs are hard to agree/disagree with as you cannot hear if he said something or had been a problem earlier in the game. Staring someone down is an awfully tough T to validate if that was indeed the extent of the infraction.

1. What a crappy article. It's like it was written by the shooter's Dad.

2. This camera angle doesn't help, so I'd have to defer to whatever the officials called or didn't call.

3. I'm not one to punish a player who braces for contact, but there's a limit on how much affect he can have and still get a call. If he bails to the point where contact is insignificant, a no-call may be appropriate. Coaches invariably yell at their player to stay in there.

Lots of great observations and perspectives here...I hadn't even noticed the actions or inactions of the trail official. On a bang-bang play like that, I could see the no-call, and I agree that that's not the 'easy way out.' That's usually the hard call to make. I concur with those who suggest we don't know what the first T was for other than from what the ignorant writer said. I don't think there was a stare-down, the T whistle came too quick for that, so I wouldn't be surprised if the player said something that the video obviously didn't pick up. We also don't know what occurred prior to either T in the game. Maybe the player had already been warned. It's easy to forget that this was one play taken out of context.