Question: Charges vs. Blocks
 

Hi,

I'm not an official, but like knowing the nuances of each rule. I was playing in a league last night and I have a question about a charge/block call.

An offensive player was driving to the basket towards a defensive player. The defensive player was stationary, but before the offensive player made contact the defensive player rotated his shoulders about 60 degrees to brace for impact. Personally, I always thought that would be a block. The official said you are allowed to protect yourself and it's a charge. This is no restricted circle.

I know this may be an obvious call, but I'm questioning it since every charge drill I have participated in was to stay square and protect your lower region.

Thanks,
R.J.

Player is allowed to protect themselves as you were told. ;)

Peace

The official was correct. In fact, the defender may turn, duck, step away from the offensive player (don't need to be set) or even put there arms out a bit to cushion the impact (as long as they don't push with them). What they can't do is be moving towards the opponent at the time of contact.

Please tell me you didn't argue with the referee or question his call on the spot.

One thing that really irritates me when I'm working men's wreck ball is how "players" think they know the rules.

The other night a player argued that the other team shouldn't get the ball on a Technical I had called on his team. His reason, well I see in the NBA that the possession is not in addition to the foul.

So now I gotta debate on my hands with someone who is a t.v. expert. And who admitted he hadn't been to a high school game in over 10 years and never picked up a high school rule book in his life. :eek:

So my point being, I'm glad you came on here and questioned it, I hope you didn't question it there as well.

I had a player start to question the second shot on a technical until I told him that he had a good grasp of the NBA rule, but we weren't using those. He understood.

Of course, he also didn't understand why I called the intentional foul later when he just grabbed the shooter to prevent him from shooting.

Reminds me of a wreck league sitch I had a few weeks ago. The ol' "he traveled!!!!" on a spot throw in .

Player approaches me during a break in the action and asks why I didn't call a traveling violation on an opposing player that moved his feet laterally during a spot throw in (but always had one foot over the spot). I told him why. He was adamate (sp?) that there is a rule in the Fed rulebook that says traveling is the violation for such an act. He asked what I would have if the player did not have at least one foot over the spot and I said, "A throw in violation". He looks at me like I'm nuts and says, "Ya, traveling." Me, "No. Just a throw in violation. Not a traveling violation."

So, he says if that isn't a traveling violation then why don't we see players running all the way up and down the end line or side line after the ref hands them a ball for a spot throw in. I told him because that would be a throw in violation. He says, right, a traveling violation. LOL. I just couldn't get it through his head. It was funny. We laughed and moved on as he shook his head in disbelief.

This "kid" didn't know it, but I remember watching him play h.s. and small college level ball at schools in my area. He was a pretty good player but has been out of the college game for 3 or 4 years.

Shocked I am! Shocked I tell ya!

So basically this is what the conversation sounded like...? :D

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YUy7N9X1UC8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Basically, I was on the bench and approached him at half time. I did think he made the wrong call and then I usually research it. If I am wrong, I apologize and move on. I've played at the college level and I have never heard of this protecting yourself (other than covering your lower region). "In fact, the defender may turn, duck, step away" - I can duck and undercut him and he can be called for a charge????? This is completely foreign to me.

There is a lot of inconsistency in rect leagues. I got called for a carry because "after" my last dribble, I carried the ball over my head.

One of the biggest mistakes that people make when they play, they think they know more about the rules then they do. I doubt seriously you ever read an actual rulebook when you played and that is not unusual. I had all these feelings about the rules when I played and quickly found out how wrong I was about all kinds of things when I got into the game as an official (in 3 sports).

And it is not about undercutting someone either. You have the right to your spot and no one has the right to run into you and displace you when you have obtained that spot legally. And just because there is contact does not also mean there has to be a call, but by rule you should not be responsible if you have obtained Legal Guarding Position before contact or before a player goes airborne with the ball.

Peace

Since you asked nicely and seem as if you truly wish to understand, here are the relevant HS and NCAA rule citations:
NFHS 4-23-3 . . After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne,
provided he/she has inbound status.
b. The guard is not required to continue facing the opponent.
c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it
is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.
d. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane.
e. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact.

NCAA 4-35-6
. To maintain a legal guarding position after the initial position has been attained, the guard:
a. Is not required to continue having the torso face the opponent;
b. Is required to have either one foot or both feet on the playing court (cannot be out of bounds);
c. May raise the hands or may jump within his or her own vertical plane;
d. May shift to maintain guarding position in the path of the dribbler, provided that the guard does not charge into the dribbler or otherwise cause contact;
e. May move laterally or obliquely to maintain position provided such a move is not toward the opponent when contact occurs;
f. Is not required to have the feet on the playing court when shifting in the path of the dribbler or when moving laterally or obliquely; and
g. May turn or duck to absorb shock when contact by the dribbler is imminent. In such a case, the dribbler shall not be absolved from the responsibility of contact.

I can't say I've read on from cover to cover that's for sure. I have been wrong on a few things. I don't usually complain to much. Maybe, I was over angered because the game was very chippy.

Most of my knowledge (as seen above - somewhat limited knowledge) is from coaches, camps, and even videos. I just have never seen a video about taking charges that didn't involve getting in front of the player and taking a hit right in the middle of your chest. To me I saw it as a guy approaching the defender, getting hit by his moving shoulder (like a reach in) and then the "charge/block" occurred split seconds after.

It might not be undercutting, but if I decided to duck when a player is flying at me, chances are a fight would occur. I'm not going to try that one.

Thanks for you input and any future input.

There's a difference between ducking to absorb contact and ducking to undercut a player.

That is all wonderful, but you were just quoted the rule be NevadaRef.

And I have never seen a player duck out of the way and undercut a single player in my nearly 20 years of officiating as you imply is the concern.

I also could not let this go either. There is no such thing as a reach in. You have got a lot of reading to do. :D

Peace

Coaches and camps don't teach rules. They teach strategies. Standing in a and taking a charge is a good strategy and it will help you get the call, but it is not required by rule. Coaches teach pushing opponents out of the way to get position on a rebound (which isn't called often enough and is a good rebounding strategy), but by rule it is a pushing foul.

Don't learn your rules from coaches.

Words To The Wise ...
 

Idea for a tattoo (above). Or, at least, write it one hundred times on a blackboard after school.

Note to young'uns: You can "Google" blackboard if you don't know what it is.

I was typing my post while NevadaRef posted his so I did not see it before I submitted mine.

Secondly, a "reach in" is not a foul... I know... but the layman's term for when a player does and makes contact. I'm not here to be a lawyer. I'm here to understand the rule and explain why it doesn't make sense and hopefully have it make sense. So, I was saying that this moving shoulder was the first thing to make contact against the approaching offensive player. That's all.

As for ducking, I'm not that tall (5'11) and I play with guys that are 5 to 9 inches taller and quite athletic. Any lowering of my body could cause such a player to unnecessarily rotate in the air. Heck, I could undercut some of these guys standing straight up.

All politics aside, I thank the non-angry posters for their informative responses. I thank NevadaRef for his research. Basically, I now know the full rule even though knowing how to apply it is beyond my knowledge.

Basically, as long as the defender doesn't significantly move into the offensive player by turning his shoulder, he should be fine. Is it better to take it in the chest? Absolutely, it makes the call easier, quite frankly.

I have called a player control foul when the defender practically turned around to absorb the contact. Offensive coach about had his head explode (his team was way out of control, and this was about the fourth offensive foul we called).

the trick is knowing when a player is ducking to absorb contact and when he is ducking to trip the opponent.

The problem with coaches (even those who "used to officiate") is so much of the rules they know just aren't so.

So we're in the same, average height boat. Usually if someone is undercutting a player it's obvious (to us, at least).

Even if you weren't "set" the rules prevent the offense from just mauling a defender, like kicking his/her foot out or putting a hard forearm into the defender's chest. Again, those would be obvious enough that anyone could see it.

If you think about it, if a defender ducks that would move his upper torso (importantly his head and face) TOWARDS the airborne player. This would not be a way for a defender to protect himself and it also takes the defender outside of his vertical plane.

Yep!

I love it.

That is not the manner of ducking I am envisioning. I see it being done in a way that turns the defender away from the impact while also lowering themselves.