Kansas v Texas: Close Block/Charge Play

[ballgame99]

I'm really not trying to argue, just want to make sure I understand. How would screening rules apply? Why would a defensive player be screening an offensive player on an out of bounds play?

If a defensive player is standing in a spot on a floor, under what circumstances would it be OK for an offensive player, with the ball or without, to run them over?

Again, please don't take my question as being argumentative, I just want to make sure I understand what is at play here.

[walt]

If B1 establishes position within A1's field of vision, B1 has to stop short of contact and give A1 a chance to stop or avoid him same as if one of A1's teammates is setting a screen within B's field of vision. If B1 is outside of A1's field of vision, he has to give A1 a minimum of space just like a screen being set outside of field of vision.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

I'm really not trying to argue, just want to make sure I understand. How would screening rules apply? Why would a defensive player be screening an offensive player on an out of bounds play?

If a defensive player is standing in a spot on a floor, under what circumstances would it be OK for an offensive player, with the ball or without, to run them over?

Again, please don't take my question as being argumentative, I just want to make sure I understand what is at play here.

Screening has a rulebook definition beyond the usual notion of the offensive player "setting a screen."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by referee99

A carnage charge: Charnge!

My office neighbors are wondering why I'm chuckling!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I don't like that the rule book does not take into account a player looking away from the defender in order to catch a pass, but alas... it doesn't.

This would fall under ART. 5 of the section on guarding, as the defender was initially defending a moving opponent without the ball. To obtain LGP in this case time and distance are factors. However, when the defender got set the offensive player had time and space to avoid contact... he just didn't see that he had to do so. Unfortunately for myself and that offensive player, being able to see the defender being set doesn't matter. It should... but it doesn't.

deecee mentioned that line of sight doesn't matter, and I missed that.

No one is making the offensive player not look where he is going. The real fault in this play is the his teammate who threw the pass that led him into a charge.

[Brad]

I think everyone is right by rule that it is a charge, but I definitely agree with the sentiment that it should be a block. It's a total BS play.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Brad

I think everyone is right by rule that it is a charge, but I definitely agree with the sentiment that it should be a block. It's a total BS play.

So a ballhandler just has to look away and the contact is the defenders fault?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

So a ballhandler just has to look away and the contact is the defenders fault?

No, I think he would apply time and distance rules in this case if he had a choice. IOW, two steps like on a screen.

[OKREF]

I can see why it's called a block. Looks to me the defender is moving forward when the contact happens, or least leaning forward and into the offensive player.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Brad

I think everyone is right by rule that it is a charge, but I definitely agree with the sentiment that it should be a block. It's a total BS play.

I tend to concur...but I'd still charge this.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Calling a PC foul on the guy catching the ball is not fair at all. He had no chance to avoid the contact.

Bryan, there is only one ruleset where your interp holds water, but I don't think you've attained that lofty level.

[BryanV21]

My intention is to understand a rule entirely, not just accept what the right call is and move on to the next play. That could very well mean reading into things too much. However, if the end result is a better understanding of the rule, then so be it. Down the road it will make me a better official.

I'm sorry if that stubbornness rubs any of you the wrong way. It's not meant to offend, it's meant to get more out of you.

Or maybe I'm just thick. I don't know. I have a better understanding of the rule, and I'm better for it. I could have just said "okay, it's a charge". But doing so would have been wrong of me. Unless I don't care.

Again... I'm sorry if that's too much for any of you to handle. I'm here to be better. If I make some friends, then that's great. I'd love that. But the bottom line is to be better, and due to my stubbornness I am.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by APG

I tend to concur...but I'd still charge this.

I think it is a dumb offensive play to expect that you can fly down the court without looking where you're going. Even if the defender was there for 3-4 steps as the pass was coming in the offensive player would have still crushed him. Players have to be responsible for where they are moving.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think it is a dumb offensive play to expect that you can fly down the court without looking where you're going. Even if the defender was there for 3-4 steps as the pass was coming in the offensive player would have still crushed him. Players have to be responsible for where they are moving.

Except most of the time, the defender isn't there for 3-4 steps and only attempts to take the charge at the last second. IMO, it' just a cheap way to try and play defense much like trying to run over and take a charge under the basket. The latter is all but gone from almost all levels of play...I wouldn't be surprised to see the former get eliminated by more than the NBA in the future.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think it is a dumb offensive play to expect that you can fly down the court without looking where you're going. Even if the defender was there for 3-4 steps as the pass was coming in the offensive player would have still crushed him. Players have to be responsible for where they are moving.

I see this the same as I do when it comes to a receiver going for a pass in football.

If a receiver, who is watching the incoming pass not the defense, runs into a defender before making the catch it is the defender who is penalized... not the receiver.

In that case, should the receiver be penalized, while we praise the defender for doing a good job? And do so because the receiver should have looked where he was running? No.

BTW, I'm not using that football reference to say the defender in this thread should have gotten the blocking call. I'm merely showing how somebody could make a legitimate gripe about this rule.

On the flip side, I agree that any player should watch where they're going.

So I'm playing both sides here.