College Block/Charge - Has the rule changed ?

[JPS]

This season with the institution of the arc near the basket in college basketball, I expected that it would help clean up play somewhat in terms of the block/charge. The reason being that secondary defenders will know they need to establish legal guarding position sooner and further out on the court in order to draw a charge, rather than clogging the middle.

In the past I've been pretty good at knowing which way an official will make such a call. But I must say that as the season has progressed I'm now completely confused as to what a block and what a charge is. Nearly every game I've seen examples where a charge is called despite the fact that the defender is still moving and did not establish legal guarding position. The only common denominator appears to be whether the defender (whether primary or secondary) is outside the arc (in which case it's called a charge regardless of legal guarding position) or not. In other words, it seems that the main factor is not whether the defender has established legal guarding position, but WHERE on the floor he is when contact occurs.

I'm not an official but wanted to check with the professionals on this to see if this was the intention of the new rule or not (I went back to read the NCAA's comments when the rule was enacted and didn't get this impression whatsoever). If it's not the intention, then why are so many calls being made this way ? Is it asking too much for an official to look at BOTH the defender's position on the floor and whether he achieved legal guarding position ?

Just wondering,

Jon

[bob jenkins]

The rule (or how it's supposed to be called) hasn't changed for defenders outside the restricted arc.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JPS

Nearly every game I've seen examples where a charge is called despite the fact that the defender is still moving and did not establish legal guarding position.

....

Is it asking too much for an official to look at BOTH the defender's position on the floor and whether he achieved legal guarding position ?

Just wondering,

Jon

Your assumption that a player not be moving to have legal guarding position is perhaps where you're confused. It is not a requirement at all until the shooter is airborne. And even then, it is not that movement is illegal, only movement that carries the defender into the path of the airborne player. If they are already in the airborne player's path, additional movement may still be legal (depending on the direction)

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JPS

The reason being that secondary defenders will know they need to establish legal guarding position sooner and further out on the court in order to draw a charge, rather than clogging the middle.

Also, there is no time/distance with regard to when the guard establishes LGP. As long as he establishes LGP before the contact, he's legal at that point. He doesn't have to give the dribbler a step or a second. He just has to get their first.

Personally, outside of the arc, I haven't seen any difference in the way this play is officiated.

[JPS]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Your assumption that a player not be moving to have legal guarding position is perhaps where you're confused. It is not a requirement at all until the shooter is airborne. And even then, it is not that movement is illegal, only movement that carries the defender into the path of the airborne player. If they are already in the airborne player's path, additional movement may still be legal (depending on the direction)

Camron, no I'm not confused at all. I said still moving AND didn't establish legal guarding position. To be more narrow (and apparently clear) I should have just said the defender didn't establish legal guarding position. Yet because the defender was outside the arc this seems to be the most important factor in calling a charge. That's the impression I've gotten from the games thus far, anyway.

Jon

[JPS]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Also, there is no time/distance with regard to when the guard establishes LGP. As long as he establishes LGP before the contact, he's legal at that point. He doesn't have to give the dribbler a step or a second. He just has to get their first.

Personally, outside of the arc, I haven't seen any difference in the way this play is officiated.

When I said 'sooner', I meant that a defender would need to get outside of the arc and establish position, rather than staying inside the arc and waiting for the offensive player to come to him.

It takes additional time for a defender to accomplish this, meaning he has to react and move quicker, which is where the 'sooner' comes into play. Sorry for any confusion.

Jon

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JPS

Camron, no I'm not confused at all. I said still moving AND didn't establish legal guarding position. To be more narrow (and apparently clear) I should have just said the defender didn't establish legal guarding position. Yet because the defender was outside the arc this seems to be the most important factor in calling a charge. That's the impression I've gotten from the games thus far, anyway.

Jon

What is your understanding of what it takes to get LGP?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JPS

Yet because the defender was outside the arc this seems to be the most important factor in calling a charge. That's the impression I've gotten from the games thus far, anyway.

Jon

Well to be honest where else on the floor to players attempt to try to get a charge on a regular basis? Around the basket is by far the main spot, so yes where they are located has ramifications. And no the rule has not changed other than the consideration for the restricted area. And for the record there was a RA before this year, they just decided to put it on the floor this year.

Peace

[JPS]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

What is your understanding of what it takes to get LGP?

My understanding comes from the rule book. Section 35 in particular.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/prod...loads/BR13.pdf

Jon

[Adam]

Didn't answer the question. He didn't ask where you got your understanding; he asked what your understanding was.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JPS

My understanding comes from the rule book. Section 35 in particular.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/prod...loads/BR13.pdf

Jon

That wasn't my question. I asked you you thought it means, not where it is in the book.

[JPS]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Didn't answer the question. He didn't ask where you got your understanding; he asked what your understanding was.

And that's what I answered. My understanding is what is written in the rule book.

I provided the link and reference as a courtesy, in case anyone wants to actually read it. I could have copied and pasted the text but I didn't see the point.

Jon

[JPS]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That wasn't my question. I asked you you thought it means, not where it is in the book.

Sorry for the use of the word "comes" but I intended to say that what is in the rule book is what I use as my reference as to what constitutes legal guarding position.

And to get back to my original point, there have been numerous cases this season where defenders who are not in legal guarding position have received favorable charge calls, with no seeming explanation other than they were outside the arc.

Jon

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JPS

And that's what I answered. My understanding is what is written in the rule book.

I provided the link and reference as a courtesy, in case anyone wants to actually read it. I could have copied and pasted the text but I didn't see the point.

Jon

Camron was asking you to put it into your own words, not to quote the rule book.

I'll cut to the chase, he's questioning whether you're understanding is accurate.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JPS

Sorry for the use of the word "comes" but I intended to say that what is in the rule book is what I use as my reference as to what constitutes legal guarding position.

And to get back to my original point, there have been numerous cases this season where defenders who are not in legal guarding position have received favorable charge calls, with no seeming explanation other than they were outside the arc.

Jon

If you can't seem to reconcile what you repeatedly see with what you think the rule is, the most likely explanation is that you don't actually understand the rules as you think you do.