block/charge/no call considerations
 

Did a pre-season league game this weekend (small high school boys) and had a block/charge situation come up. A1 drive to the basket baseline, B1 comes in as a secondary defender and establishes his position basically under the basket (he was maybe a step out from under it). The timing of A1 leaving the floor and B1 establishing his position were very close. Ball is released before the collision and goes in.

I no call it; play on. The timing of the play was such that if the contact had occured somewhere other than directly under the basket I would have gone with a PC. I would be interested to hear others' thoughts on a play like this.

NFHS rules permit a defender to draw a PC foul, even if under the basket. In our neck of the woods, that's how we adjudicate it.

In HS everyone is entitled to a spot anywhere on the floor (yup even behind the backboard) as long as the defender got to the spot prior to the shooter alighting, I'd consider a p/c.

This is all I really need to know. Assuming you were working HS rules, it seems a PC call was in order. Defender made a legal move, got to his spot, and the shooter should have adjusted.

Rumors ??? Scuttlebutt ??? Gossip ???
 

Will the NFHS ever go to the secondary defender arc under the basket? If so, when?

I hope not. As long as we don't have too many officials no-calling the OP play because they don't like calling a PC under the basket, we should be fine.

I hope so, it would be good for the game! The RA takes the guessing out for officials, reduces potential injury for players in the heart of the paint & promotes a free flowing game.

Guessing about what?

No more so than calling the charges on the offense...and probably even less so

Not really.

It really just robs the defense of its ability to guard the path to the basket.

Just my opinions based on my experiences, many times the lesser experienced officials dont pick up the secondary defender in time (prior to contact) & when the crash happens... they guess. The RA provides us with a formula. In the RA = a block & it also allows the T or C to provide info to "get the play right."

I dont see the defense getting robbed of anything. Get there before the shooter alights or get out the way! The people came to see made baskets NOT collisions in the paint.

Good Question
 

What you asked for, "...to hear others' thoughts on a play like this."
The title of your thread: "Block/Charge/No Call Considerations." Then a statement about a consideration contrary to the rule set prevailing over the teams you were officiating.
You asked for, "...others' thoughts on a play like this."
My thoughts: don't do that anymore.

In a perfect world, I would hope so.

My name is tref & I approve this message :D

Don't make me take this negative.

In NFHS, once the ball leaves the shooters hand does that eliminate control (Player and team)?

I'm just wondering as this is the case in FIBA, and the post would then be a call as a common foul on offence for a push. If basket goes it would count.

No & no, but those are the principles in NCAA-M.

Once the ball leaves the shooter's hand(s), correct, there is no longer control. If the shooter crshes into the defender before returning to the floor, it is a player control foul on the airborne shooter and no basket. if the shooter lands first, and then crashes into the defender, then it's a charging foul and the basket counts if it goes in.

Yes & Yes.

It's still a PC foul, however.

That may be (regarding the lesser experienced officials) but that was no reason to turn a perfectly good change into a block just because some officials got it wrong as a result of not looking in the right spot. It wasn't that adding the RA made us get it right, it changed the balance of offense and defense.

Sure they are. With the RA they can be there before the shooter alights and they still get called with a block..just because their heels are on the RA arc.

People also come to see good defense and offensive players making good decisions when their path is being cut off. The collisions would have stopped if officials would have just called the rules as they already were....as a charge. Offensive players wouldn't have continued to drive into trouble. The RA penalizes the player making the better play instead of the player who had control of the situation yet forced it anyway.

If a defender occupies any path through which the opponent wishes to go, that should be considered great defense no matter where it is on the court.

^ This.

Except most people (fans, coaches, players) don't consider a help defender standing so close to the basket for the sole purpose of just taking a charge as good defense like it or not. They'd rather see a defender attempt to block a shot or go for the steal or have the primary defender move his feet and cut the defender off (the sole time most people deem it acceptable to take a charge near/under the basket). Was the fact that officials weren't calling this a charge/PC by rule an expediting factor in bringing in the RA? Probably...but I think there's been a clear shift in ideology on this type of play, and I for one like it....and so does every single major rule set save for NFHS.

^ That.

Only because they're lemmings who've been conditioned by sports center to expect that.

I would not mind an RA, but I think it would not be officiated properly at the HS level. I just do not find HS officials as a whole to take on rules that have come complex to them and apply them especially at the lower levels. Maybe varsity games and more experienced officials would be OK with this, but I think a lot of two person games would have this play officiated horribly. At least that is my feeling here.

Peace

That may be the reason for some. But then again, there could be, *GASP*, folks that never thought a help defender running in front of the basket for the sole purpose of getting a charge is a "legit" form of defense. Neither school of thought is right or wrong (for debate purposes...obviously in all but NFHS, it ISN'T good defense (save for exceptions).

It is what it is...the RA is here and isn't going anywhere. A generation from now, they'll look back at the RA and wonder how the game was played before it. :p

I also agree with Rut, that the RA at the high school level is problem a while away...heck we have a hard enough time getting a lot of officials to call it properly in the first place as it is.

Block Charge Is Hard Enough Already ...
 

Although the block charge is not the most difficult call for me (it's traveling), here in "Two Person Connecticut", having to make the block charge call, especially the block charge that just "pops up" unexpectedly, would be extra difficult if I had to look down for some lines on the court. Just being brutally honest, with you guys, and myself.

+1

Yes, b/c only you and those who agree with you are capable of independent thought. :rolleyes:

The RA only solves that problem when the contact happens inside the RA. And, most of the time the contact is outside, so the problem still exists.

From what I've heard (and, yes, it's somewhat second-hand, I admit), many more calls in near the arc were wrong last year than before the arc in NCAA (M and W). Maybe it's just a learning curve and they'll improve this year. But, as a rule, NCAA officials are "better" than HS officials, and if the NCAA officials have trouble, ....

This is what I heard directly from a D1 supervisor's mouth.

Yes it was a hot-topic in May:
http://ncaambb.arbitersports.com/Gro...%20Arbiter.pdf

Reps = success, I'm sure we'll see an improvement this season.

Better :confused:
I always thought that "next level" officials were just individuals who were afforded & took advantage of an opportunity that some excellent HS officials have not been provided with, for whatever reasons.

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?

The question remains. What does it take to become a primary defender. What if they get position outside, back up a step or two and get one foot in the RA? Does the fact that they back up a step or two during the drive make them a primary defender. What if they back up 10 steps after getting in front of the driver? 20? When does a defender shift from being secondary to primary?

The goal of defense is to prevent the other team from shooting the ball. Obtaining any position between the ball and the basket is, by definition, good defense. It is preventing the offensive player from having access to a desirable path to the basket. It may not be as exciting as a dunk or a blocked shot, but it is still good defense to take away the avenue desired by the opponent.

People can thump their chests all day long about it not being "good" defense, but those claims just don't make sense. They may be common but it doesn't make them add up when you consider what the purpose of defense is.

You can also use hyperbole about defending the ball coming through the net but in 99% of the cases, the contact occurs before the ball is released.

The REAL reason for the RA is to encourage scoring. Nothing more. The safety claim is just a canard. They had to use that to justify the change as they didn't want to appear to be manipulating the basics of the game for something like scoring. The saftey issue was easily resolved with the old rules if the plays were called as the rules were written.

People do realize there is a difference between "their opinion" and "facts"? :eek:

back up 10-20 steps, now you are being nonsensical. and btw it doesnt really matter when of if the defender can ever switch from being secondary to primary because the rule states the seconday defender cannot ESTABLISH INITIAL LEGAL GUARDING POSITION so if you want to take your argument to the most absurd extreme and assume the secondary defender establishes position 94 feet from the basket and backs up all the way into the RA they can do that legally.

It is not nonsense. It is just exaggerating the elements to expose the main point that you don't seem to see.

Again, how does a player become a primary defender? How long must they be on the player and at what distance must they be in order to be a primary defender. If players switch out top on a screen, the secondary defender does at some point become a primary. The question is where and when? If a secondary defender slides in and backs there way down the lane for 1 step, two steps, 5 steps, 10 steps, all right with the dribbler, when do they become the primary?

camron you are the one missing the point. the RA only matters for establishing initial position. if the situation with screen out top you describe occurs, it doesnt matter what you want to call the defender (primary, secondary, tertiary) who picks the offensive player up off the screen if that defender establishes legal guarding position outside the RA, then they are allowed to maintain that legal guarding position all the way into the RA. the key point and the only thing that matters is where this defender establishes guarding postion, inside or outside of the RA after that the same rules for maintaining legal position are in effect.

Why then is it being called a block when simple because the defender has a heel on the line even if it wasn't there to being with.

Maybe it should be as you suggest, but that is not how it is being called.

x2