How the new block/charge rule is affecting Duke's defense

[feldspar]

I can't even begin to come up with a response to this post without garnering some sort of infraction.

Dude, it's totally worth it. I'm speaking from experience.

[Carolina_Blue]

Dude, it's totally worth it. I'm speaking from experience.

Go ahead I would love to hear it. We are all adults here. I am not going to take anything personally. I wouldn't have posted that on a Duke message board if I didn't expect your feedback. My hope is that you have a reasonable argument and do not have to result to name-calling or any form of insult like some of the posters on this board. If you have a reasonable argument or defense then I am open to hearing it and open to having my perspective altered. I do not feel like I am watching those videos posted on here with "carolina-blue glasses" on, so prove me wrong. I promise I will not recommend any sort of banishment or infraction as I have already been banned once for an unknown reason.

[airowe]

Go ahead I would love to hear it. We are all adults here. I am not going to take anything personally. I wouldn't have posted that on a Duke message board if I didn't expect your feedback. My hope is that you have a reasonable argument and do not have to result to name-calling or any form of insult like some of the posters on this board. If you have a reasonable argument or defense then I am open to hearing it and open to having my perspective altered. I do not feel like I am watching those videos posted on here with "carolina-blue glasses" on, so prove me wrong. I promise I will not recommend any sort of banishment or infraction as I have already been banned once for an unknown reason.

I'll let someone a lot smarter and more reserved explain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

[darthur]

not trolling. My first comment I agreed with what one of yall said. My second I responded to a comment with a logical explanation. The videos speak for themselves. If you look at things honestly can you tell me I am wrong?

This board is neither a place to make fun of Duke players nor a place to pick a fight with Duke fans. There are many, many other places you can go on the Internet if that is what you want to do. And yes, your post is the very definition of trolling.

PS: Yes, Paulus flopped on that play. And yes, Hansbrough flopped on that other play. Doesn't make your post a worthy contribution.

[gep]

It is absurd. Paint a damn line.

If I recall correctly, the NCAA decided against for "cost" reasons...

[feldspar]

If I recall correctly, the NCAA decided against for "cost" reasons...

Another reason I have heard is that it would cause confusion with the women's game, where, IIRC, they did not implement this rule.

Not that I'm buying it...

[SMO]

We are all adults here.

Now that's questionable!

[dukeENG2003]

There is no such thing as a "good no-call", there is only a missed call.

VERY not true, this post shows a complete lack of understanding of the rules of basketball IMO. There are PLENTY of situations where contact occurs that is not deserving of a whistle. Screens come to mind as an obvious example in addition to defenders who are both in established "legal guarding position" that offense players initiate contact with (but don't just flat out bowl them over).

[weezie]

Another reason I have heard is that it would cause confusion with the women's game, where, IIRC, they did not implement this rule.

Not that I'm buying it...

Oh that really sounds like some baloney from the NCAA Idiot Rules Committee. I predict the outcry from the men's team coaches will quickly over rule any dopey made up reasons by next season.

Kind of like the nasty ball that the NBA tried to force on the league until everybody's hands started getting cut.

[oldnavy]

not trolling. My first comment I agreed with what one of yall said. My second I responded to a comment with a logical explanation. The videos speak for themselves. If you look at things honestly can you tell me I am wrong?

So are you really saying that the extension of the offensive player's arm coming up from his waist caused T to "fly" backwards 6-10 feet? DUDE, full speed Ray Lewis hits don't cause that much recoil... OF COURSE Tyler flopped! Don't be insulting by saying that he didn't! I’ll give you the one where he had his foot stepped on, that caused him to fall backwards before he could flop.

If it makes you feel better (because I know this is the next thing coming), YES I believe that JJ, and Shane, and other Duke players have flopped as well. It has become very common like it or not. I don't like it FWIW!

[crimsonandblue]

Oh that really sounds like some baloney from the NCAA Idiot Rules Committee. I predict the outcry from the men's team coaches will quickly over rule any dopey made up reasons by next season.

Kind of like the nasty ball that the NBA tried to force on the league until everybody's hands started getting cut.

I assume the reason they didn't paint the box wasn't the one-time cost. It's the cost of the first time. Then the cost to repaint when the ridiculously tiny magic box is shown to be worthless, to then go with the NBA line or do away with the concept entirely.

But I think we can all agree the way this was done was silly and the definitions needlessly arcane.

[feldspar]

The painting of the box was due to it being an experimental rule (although no one will officially tell you its experimental). They want to see how it plays out and if they like it, I'm guessing they'll paint a line/box/circle/hexagon or whatever.

Problem is, not painting the "box" has led to poor implementation of a rule. It's kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Lulu]

Seeing as Duke can probably "afford" to paint a freaking line, is there any rule against it? I'd love to watch the refs make bad calls all season and be proven wrong by the real line that just happens to be where their imaginary one is. Of course, it will take some bold refs to ignore and such markings on our floor.

I know I mentioned something similar before, but I'm truly very curious if this is against the rules. Even if a "line" breaks some kind of rule, can you use a darker wood, etc. on an area of the floor that just happens to be right beneath the basket?

[gep]

Seeing as Duke can probably "afford" to paint a freaking line, is there any rule against it? I'd love to watch the refs make bad calls all season and be proven wrong by the real line that just happens to be where their imaginary one is. Of course, it will take some bold refs to ignore and such markings on our floor.

I know I mentioned something similar before, but I'm truly very curious if this is against the rules. Even if a "line" breaks some kind of rule, can you use a darker wood, etc. on an area of the floor that just happens to be right beneath the basket?

This is interesting... I thought the MSG games had the line (NBA one, of course). And I thought I saw one charge call on some team where the defender had one foot on the line, and the other foot outside of the circle (I hope I got this right). Maybe the schools that can "afford" to paint the line will be allowed to do so?