What is next? The goalie can't stand too close to the goal because that isn't a good for of defense. The knights can't protect the castle by defending on top of the wall. lol

When there's a goalie playing in a basketball game, I'll start to worry about that. What others sports may or may not permit is of no consequence in this scenario.

Fixed that one for ya...

If it's "their" team - it's a great play.

For traditionalist, that may be a great play.

For most other people, they don't consider it a great play for a secondary defender to stand close to the basket for the sole purpose of trying to take a charge. EVERY major rule set except for NFHS agrees so (do they also mention safety reason as well). Now they aren't all uniform in distance or even exact application (FIBA requiring the defender to be completely inside the RA) but they're all on the same wavelength.

And they all sell it as a change for safety...not because the game needed the change to favor the offense. The safety element was only a problem because officials didn't call the game according to the rules.

Sure that was the official reason, but I think I'd be safe to say that NCAA knew exactly what they had in mind with how the rule would affect help defenders running to a spot near the basket with no intention to do anything else but try and take a charge. Plus it's not as if most fans (whom you stated liked to watch good defense) weren't clamoring for the RA for years anyway.

Fans like high scoring games and don't like defense other than blocks. We all know that. But where does it stop? How long until there's no such thing as a PC foul anywhere in the paint? Then anywhere at all? After all, it will give us more offense.

Basketball isn't an interesting sport for me at the levels that use the RA. Mainly because of the increased emphasis on solo rather than team play on offense and the RA contributes heavily to this.

We will see it in the League years before we see it in HS. I doubt the League would ever adopt such an absurd ruling.

Zone buster... Man up! :D

Honestly, I would have said the same thing about the RA rule before it got so popular.

I don't believe that...fans like blocks obviously, but they also like steals, they like the on ball defender moving his feet, beating the offensive player to the spot and taking a charge...they don't mind help defenders taking a charge as long as you aren't do it at/right near the basket. To think the RA will somehow lead to a slippery slope of no charges I think is over the top. Again, most fans aren't totally against the charge...that will never been taken out of the game. I have a hard time seeing the paint being into an RA at even the NBA level. If they're going to do anything with the paint in the NCAA, I would guess they'd widen the lane to the NBA/FIBA width.

To your last point, if high school ball is all that interests you now, more power to you. I would say that I don't believe the RA contributes much to this solo ball that you speak of...coaches at the NCAA/HS level (I'm assuming you don't watch any NBA ball) have been complaining about that well before the RA has been implemented (and in HS its not even implemented). I think the solo ball is more affected by players playing more AAU vs. traditional organized HS games. But that's a subject for another thread.

I suggest you pay a little more attention to the offenses college teams are running. They put a lot of time into screens, back cuts, and siwnging the ball to get the shots they are looking for. I'm more likely to see one-on-one play at the HS level where you have a tendency to have 1-2 players who are clearly more talented then the rest of their team.

Before the RA existed, many officials called things as if it did exist anyway. So the issue of whether they complained or not is not really relevant.

The RA (even the virtual RA) does encourage the player to continue to the rim vs. passing off to a teammate who may have a better position if they think they'll get a blocking foul called no matter what (which can actually encourage more contact contrary to one of the stated goals of the RA rule). It may not be the only factor, but it does contribute.

That certainly could be.

One question that really has never been addressed.

When does a secondary defender become a primary defender?

What about the defender who doesn't slide in at the last moment but saw the play coming a mile away and waited for the dribbler, who has a reputation of just plowing through. He didn't just get there at the last moment. Is he really a secondary defender or is he a primary defender?

Sure, he may have had time to step forward 2-3 inches but really, the rule was supposed to be about players sliding under at the last moment as a shooter was going up to shoot at the very short range. It really wasn't intended to be as much about location as it was about timing. If the defender was there 3-4 steps before the shooter got there, the shooter would be dumb to continue on that path and would deserve the foul if there was one.

Even if the defender is there 3-4 steps before the offense, he is still a secondary defender. Also, if the defender is able to get there that long before the offensive player, than he shouldnt have any problem getting outside of the RA. Therefore this part of your argument isnt really valid. Most of the time if contact is occuring in the RA it is because the defender is getting there late. I have to agree with the other posters who have said that most coaches, fans, and officials would argue a player isnt playing defense by trying to establish position so close to the basket. Are the trying to defend the ball as it comes through the bottom of the net?

Oh and on a sarcastic note, what grade level do you need to officiate at where a step is only 2-3 inches?