Justise charge?
 

Top forward flattens defender with dunk, is immediately ejected - Prep Rally - High SchoolBlog - Yahoo! Sports

Watched it a few times. The defender on the block wasn't setting to take a charge, quite frankly he was just standing there not paying attention. I still have a charge, though. Any thoughts on the two technicals? Hard to see what the first was for, but the salute was obvious.

<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/hfANguTRKwI.html?p=1" width="550" height="339" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#hfANguTRKwI" style="display:none"></embed>

The coach of the team on the far bench is standing on the other side of the division line, on the court. But he looks to be 1 step away from his chair. What a terrible setup.

That was an obvious charge that the defender was trying to take. Don't know about the 2 techs, but one yes.

They stated in the Yahoo article that he stared down the kid he dunked on. Totally not the case if you ask me....the Salute deserved one, the other I think the official wanted to get the same stage time as the dunk!

Don't believe everything you read. My guess is he yelled something he shouldn't have yelled, as he clearly didn't didn't even turn toward the flopper. He cleared yelled something and the L never hesitated.

I got nothing on the play. This isn't a charge. The defender was turning, bailing, and flopping before the shooter ever arrived. And from what I can tell, no official whistled or signaled a foul.

As for the coach standing at the division line, he's required to sit inside the box in order to use the coaching box. Where the chair is on the end of the bench has nothing to do with where the coach is allowed to stand.

The only problem is that the rules specifically allow the defender to turn to absorb the shock of the contact, and that is not considered flopping. The defender is standing there and doesn't turn until after the shooter leaves the ground and is about to jump through his face.

Agreed...charge....the shooter went through the defender in the process of getting to the rim. The defender doesn't have lose have his teeth for it to be a charge. He can turn to protect himself as he did.

Very little contact at all. The shooter's knee brushes the flopper's shoulder as he flies by.

There was no charging call made on the play made by any of the three officials, nor should there have been.

Fouls aren't called based on what's about to or could happen, at least not in my games.

I agree...
 

...the defender had the call up until he flopped. I would have had nothing.

And Sailor Jerry is now on my "never buy" list.

I Don't Even Like Spiced Rum ...
 

I, too, was getting pretty sick of that advertisement.

commercial free version
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DtaYzTeLHNY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

discretion is the better part of valor?
 

Notice #12 and his "help" defense.

Flopping is "faking" being fouled, not leaving early for protection or to soften the impact. Turning away or bailing out to save your teeth is NO reason for the defender to not earn a charge. It is thinking like this that have led the NCAA to add the RA....too many officials were just not making these calls either way, taking the easy way out with a no call.

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

If he turns away too much, or bails out too far, actually it is. I agree with those who have a no call here. Hard to blame the kid for bailing, though. A lot of things could have happened. Defender might have taken a knee to the face, or the offensive player might have been flipped on his head.

Worst thing that can happen here, in my opinion, is that the defender does recoil from the contact, creating only a glancing blow rather than a direct hit.
Offensive player hits the deck, defender is called for the block, because he didn't take it in the chest/fall down. :rolleyes:

+1 well put

Tough one for me, based on shooter almost clearing defender, there's not much there, if he hadn't elevated as much easy charge. IMHO defender didn't bail.

Stolen! "I don't have thatcontact causing thatresult."

I'm not really fond of the C in this video. He walked up the court and then didn't step down on a drive that he was responsible for. Even if there was a foul to call here, he just didn't look ready to officiate that play.

Great observation.

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.

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.......

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

I agree...
 

...with being able to turn away, or protect oneself from the contact, but I saw a flop, and every flop I've ever seen had some contact involved. And a "no-call" here is hardly an easy way out; not making some call is likely to be more controversial than making some kind of call. The thing that I've seen happen in many cases, and I think is more egregious, is the defender will maintain LGP, but back up, and that gets called a block.

In this case, we see it differently.

I don't want to speculate...
 

...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.

That is basically what I said.

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.