Justise charge?

[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.