Justise charge?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

From the limited look of this camera angle, I'm leaning toward a no-call on the play. I don't have that contact causing that result.

Exactly. He doesn't get a call just because he was once standing in the spot. He still has to take contact to draw a foul. A leg brushing and arm from a bailing defender is not a foul.

[derwil]

The biggest problem I have is the Lead is blowing one of those Sonic whistles. Those things should be banned! Sounds like fingernails on chalkboards to me.......

[VaTerp]

Good no call on the dunk. As stated before, that contact did not cause that result. And I don't think the RSA was put into the NBA and NCAA b/c of no calls. I think it was put there because they don't want players standing under the basket to draw charges from players who are attacking the rim.

Very quick and undeserved ejection IMO. The kid did not stare down or taunt the opponent. He did kind of pose and maybe he said something but I seriously doubt it was loud enough for anyone other than the ref to hear.

In that situation I would like to see the official tell the kid not to do that before hitting him with two quick Ts and tossing him.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Good no call on the dunk. As stated before, that contact did not cause that result. And I don't think the RSA was put into the NBA and NCAA b/c of no calls. I think it was put there because they don't want players standing under the basket to draw charges from players who are attacking the rim.

You had a large group of officials who, outside of the rules, decided that it was not defense to put your body in the path a shooter needed to go through in order to make the desired shot and they would just not call a charge in that area no matter what. They would gesture to the players to get up rather than call a foul. They would no-call anything in that area that was not a block. So, defenders would get in there hoping to stop the path to the shot but the officials wouldn't call it by the rules....and collision after collision was the result.

Plus they (the NBA) really wanted to capitalize on the entertainment value brought by dunks, so they flipped the rules to make it only legal for a secondary defender to take a position in a players path if it was not too close to the basket.

Calling the plays as charges would have also stopped the collisions just as well as calling the plays blocks. No matter who it is, when you penalize the player who caused the contact, they eventually stop the action causing the contact.

But, again, the NBA tunes their rules based on revenue and dunks make more than defense.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Very quick and undeserved ejection IMO. The kid did not stare down or taunt the opponent. He did kind of pose and maybe he said something but I seriously doubt it was loud enough for anyone other than the ref to hear.

In that situation I would like to see the official tell the kid not to do that before hitting him with two quick Ts and tossing him.

Note that there were 2 T's, not one. The first was called on the taunt/pose and perhaps words said to the officials. The 2nd was called after the salute. Neither alone was enough for a flagrant...but he did two things that could and did draw T's.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Plus they (the NBA) really wanted to capitalize on the entertainment value brought by dunks, so they flipped the rules to make it only legal for a secondary defender to take a position in a players path if it was not too close to the basket.

Only primary defenders can take a charge in the RA if the play originates outside the lower defensive box (save for something overt from the offensive player).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Only primary defenders can take a charge in the RA if the play originates outside the lower defensive box (save for something overt from the offensive player).

That is basically what I said.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is basically what I said.

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.

[VaTerp]

The NBA AND NCAA did not "flip" the rules. They created the RA because they didnt want secondary defenders trying to draw charges under the basket. You can say it was partly to capitalize on entertainment value brought by dunks and that's likely true. But that does not change my opinion that it's a good rule nor does anything else you typed. And I disagree that calling charges on guys who are already at the rim is a good thing or would have had the desired affect of stopping the collisions as you stated.

Secondly, I'm well aware that there were two Ts for the two separate actions. Again, does not change my opinion that it was a quick and undeserved ejection and still think the official would have done better to talk to the player instead of hitting him with two quick Ts. If he says something to him after the stare then I doubt he does the salute. If so then an easy T at that point.

But personally, I'm not ejecting a kid for those actions I saw on tape. I'm talking to him telling him to play basketball and knock off the BS. After that he's fair game. Of course, it's possible they had already said something to him but I thought I saw it mentioned that this was the first few minutes of the game. But again based on what I know and saw on tape then I think it was a VERY quick and undeserving ejection.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

The NBA AND NCAA did not "flip" the rules.

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.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

They created the RA because they didnt want secondary defenders trying to draw charges under the basket. You can say it was partly to capitalize on entertainment value brought by dunks and that's likely true. But that does not change my opinion that it's a good rule nor does anything else you typed. And I disagree that calling charges on guys who are already at the rim is a good thing or would have had the desired affect of stopping the collisions as you stated.

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.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

But personally, I'm not ejecting a kid for those actions I saw on tape.

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

[ga314ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You had a large group of officials who, outside of the rules, decided that it was not defense to put your body in the path a shooter needed to go through in order to make the desired shot and they would just not call a charge in that area no matter what. They would gesture to the players to get up rather than call a foul. They would no-call anything in that area that was not a block. So, defenders would get in there hoping to stop the path to the shot but the officials wouldn't call it by the rules....and collision after collision was the result.

...why those officials were not willing to call a charge other than they were poor at reffing the defense, and built a rationale to support their deficiency. There are also officials who decide they won't call 3-seconds or lane violations, and they're easier to judge than some bang-bang contact plays.