Block-Charge

[gumbomoop]

Seems worthy of a new thread, as it's a perennial debate.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebaske...g-block-charge

And lots to debate from this column, exemplified by these observations:

• "The block-charge... [has become] a nightly scourge."
• "Shouldn't we be thinking more radically about the block-charge call in general?"
• "Why is taking a charge considered a basketball play?"
• "What if we totally rethought the way players are asked to defend in the game of basketball? What if we made it more like pickup?"
• "Defenders... should be required to play defense: real, actual, you're-trying-to-score-and-I'm-trying-to-stop-you defense."
• "Instead of baby steps, let's take leaps. Basketball is a better game than the way it is currently officiated."

[MarkD83]

The rules that are described in the article sound as if once a player leaves the floor no one can be in his path unless he was parked in the paint forever. Early on in the article it mentioned the block/charge is eliminating exciting plays near the rim. In the NBA there is now a 3 second call on the defense. So at what point do you only allow offensive players in the paint. That would radically change how you play defense.

[MarkD83]

Just to add to my rant. At the end of the article there is a discussion about why a defender should not be allowed to stand 3 inches from the rim impeding the path of an offensive player. If players could shoot a 6 foot jump shot this would not be an issue. A dunk counts as much as the 6 footer, but the 6 footer does not get you on sports center or big endorsement deals. So instead of thinking about new rules to enhance the entertainment value of basketball teach everyone to hit a jump shot.

[CDu]

Just to add to my rant. At the end of the article there is a discussion about why a defender should not be allowed to stand 3 inches from the rim impeding the path of an offensive player. If players could shoot a 6 foot jump shot this would not be an issue. A dunk counts as much as the 6 footer, but the 6 footer does not get you on sports center or big endorsement deals. So instead of thinking about new rules to enhance the entertainment value of basketball teach everyone to hit a jump shot.

I'm not sure how standing 3 inches from the rim is in any way good defensive position unless you're trying to draw a charge after the player has already reached the rim. You aren't in rebounding position. You aren't in position to challenge a shot. You aren't in position to defend a pass. As such, the guy standing under the basket is being just as lazy with fundamentals as the guy going in for the dunk rather than the short jumpshot.

Now, I don't think offensive players should be allowed unabated free paths to the basket. But unless the defender is clearly there, I'm pretty against the charge call. For one, it's about the least entertaining of the possible scenarios to watch. For another, it's called very poorly these days. But the main reason is that it encourages lazy and dangerous play defensively.

[MarkD83]

I might agree that the charge is not exciting but not having the charge might be more dangerous. If a defender's only option is to make a play on the ball and not stand his ground on the floor there will be a lot more fouls which we consider to be flagrant fouls right now. The offensive player goes up in the air and instead of trying to jump around a defender, the defender will be going for the ball full speed and the offensive player will have no options to protect himself.

[throatybeard]

This is probably ignorant on my part, but it seems to me that as long as the officials won't call a charge unless the defender goes flying across the floor, people will go flying across the floor in order to get offensive fouls called.

[Buckeye Devil]

I had a hard time with the article. I wasn't always sure what he was trying to get at but maybe that was because I was reading it at 6 a.m. on a Sunday morning. I did like the comment about not calling a foul on the defender who draws contact while moving laterally across the floor with his hands up. I also agree that it is a shame to call a foul on a defender standing stationary with hands straight up in the air.


Another thing that bugs me although not mentioned here is the play where the defender may go in the air but the offensive player jumps into him to draw the foul. While a player opens himself up to a foul call by leaving his feet it doesn't seem to me that it always follows that he commits a foul. If the offensive player goes straight up and is fouled that is one thing. But to jump forward into the defender is something totally different in my mind.

[Jarhead]

I had a hard time with the article. I wasn't always sure what he was trying to get at but maybe that was because I was reading it at 6 a.m. on a Sunday morning. I did like the comment about not calling a foul on the defender who draws contact while moving laterally across the floor with his hands up. I also agree that it is a shame to call a foul on a defender standing stationary with hands straight up in the air.


Another thing that bugs me although not mentioned here is the play where the defender may go in the air but the offensive player jumps into him to draw the foul. While a player opens himself up to a foul call by leaving his feet it doesn't seem to me that it always follows that he commits a foul. If the offensive player goes straight up and is fouled that is one thing. But to jump forward into the defender is something totally different in my mind.

That runs along with my contention that the refs' calls are the problem. It's not the rules, it's the way they make the calls. Didn't we used to here about the right of verticality? When the player jumps vertically he has the right to come down. Duh! That brings to mind another pet peeve. What about the guy with the ball under the basket turning his back to the defender, and backing into him knocking him out of the way. Maybe the refs should be looking at the person who originates the contact rather than the effect of the contact. And that gets us back to the flopping. When a defender falls backwards without contact from the offensive player is there even a foul? I don't think so. Play on, and let the flopper get over his embarrassment on the clock.

[UrinalCake]

I don't like when defenders "try to draw a charge," and by that I mean they're not playing defense, they're not making a play on the ball or trying to stop the offensive player, they're simply trying to put themselves in a position by which the ref will grant them a charge. I don't think that's good basketball, and it's essentially the same as flopping - you're trying to fool the ref into thinking something rather than actually playing the game. I've seen Duke players do it, and I don't like it then either, even when we do get the call.

Agree with those that feel the defender has a right to vertical space. When he's got his arms straight up and jumps straight up, the offensive player shouldn't be able to draw a foul by leaning into him. It's the same kind of thing - he's not trying to actually shoot the ball, he's just trying to draw a foul.

In general I guess I'd be happier if there were fewer fouls called all around.

[FellowTraveler]

I don't like when defenders "try to draw a charge," and by that I mean they're not playing defense, they're not making a play on the ball or trying to stop the offensive player, they're simply trying to put themselves in a position by which the ref will grant them a charge.

I don't understand the premise. To be "in a position by which the ref will grant them a charge," players have to be positioned to "stop the offensive player" from proceeding along his desired path. When a defensive player positions himself so that, for an example, an offensive player cannot get to the basket, that is very much "playing defense."

Another way of thinking of it: Why is what you describe "not playing defense" but screen-setting isn't "not playing offense"?

[UrinalCake]

I don't understand the premise. To be "in a position by which the ref will grant them a charge," players have to be positioned to "stop the offensive player" from proceeding along his desired path. When a defensive player positions himself so that, for an example, an offensive player cannot get to the basket, that is very much "playing defense."

I get what you're saying, and being in proper defensive position is definitely part of good defense. But when a defender slides over at the last second and then falls over regardless of how much contact was made, that's not good defense IMO. Even if he prevents the basket from being made, he's in no position to rebound so offensive player will simply get a rebound and putback. The only positive outcome that could result in defending that way is getting a charge.

Put another way, let's assume there were no refs and no fouls could be called. How would you choose to defend a player driving to the basket? Would you stand there and then fall over backwards?

[Newton_14]

I don't understand the premise. To be "in a position by which the ref will grant them a charge," players have to be positioned to "stop the offensive player" from proceeding along his desired path. When a defensive player positions himself so that, for an example, an offensive player cannot get to the basket, that is very much "playing defense."

Another way of thinking of it: Why is what you describe "not playing defense" but screen-setting isn't "not playing offense"?

Agree. As my High School coach said a thousand times over, "Son, you play defense with your feet, not your hands. Reaching in for steal attempts is lazy and will rack up foul calls".

I hate flopping as much as the next person, but sliding your feet to stay in front of the offensive player is the very core of good defense.

[gumbomoop]

Agree. As my High School coach said a thousand times over, "Son, you play defense with your feet, not your hands."

I hate flopping as much as the next person, but sliding your feet to stay in front of the offensive player is the very core of good defense.

Maybe we should distinguish between [1] defending your own man with good footwork-positioning, and [2] sliding over to place yourself in the path of a driver to the hoop who is not your man.

According to this distinction, maybe we could all agree that [1] is good D when executed properly, and we'd applaud a charge call; whereas [2] is a play we'd like to see a whole lot less of.

[uh_no]

Maybe we should distinguish between [1] defending your own man with good footwork-positioning, and [2] sliding over to place yourself in the path of a driver to the hoop who is not your man.

According to this distinction, maybe we could all agree that [1] is good D when executed properly, and we'd applaud a charge call; whereas [2] is a play we'd like to see a whole lot less of.

Why are you not allowed to defend someone else's man? should we ban help defense and double teaming entirely? the game doesn't HAVE to be played one on one...and to take away the ability of a smart defense to contain a surperior offensive individual with good team work would not only take away most of what it means to play defense at duke, but also would be a huge detraction from the game as a whole....

[gumbomoop]

Why are you not allowed to defend someone else's man? should we ban help defense and double teaming entirely? the game doesn't HAVE to be played one on one...and to take away the ability of a smart defense to contain a surperior offensive individual with good team work would not only take away most of what it means to play defense at duke, but also would be a huge detraction from the game as a whole....

Yes, good point. I didn't intend that the distinction I drew should prohibit team defense or double teaming. I guess the "sliding over" into the path of a different player example might be part of team defense, but it doesn't seem to fit the normal understanding of double-teaming.

As for team defense, this "sliding over" isn't what I first think of, or maybe even second. Instead, I think first of switching, communication, funneling opponents into spaces where they don't want to be, cutting off passing lanes. But maybe this "sliding over" to take a charge, because now so widely practiced, has become emblematic of team defense.

[Jderf]

Yes, good point. I didn't intend that the distinction I drew should prohibit team defense or double teaming. I guess the "sliding over" into the path of a different player example might be part of team defense, but it doesn't seem to fit the normal understanding of double-teaming.

As for team defense, this "sliding over" isn't what I first think of, or maybe even second. Instead, I think first of switching, communication, funneling opponents into spaces where they don't want to be, cutting off passing lanes. But maybe this "sliding over" to take a charge, because now so widely practiced, has become emblematic of team defense.

I don't think "sliding over," in itself, is necessarily the problem. If a guard gets past his man on the perimeter, it makes sense for another defender to rotate in order to defend the path to the basket, sometimes taking a charge when the driver is out of control. I think everyone would agree that this is well within the game of basketball.

Instead, I think the problem people are trying to key in on is not sliding over, but sliding under: when the defender jumps into the path of the driver after he has already committed to a scoring move, specifically to take a charge, rather than trying to defend the path to the basket (a path which, in this hypothetical scenario, has already been given up).

[Jarhead]

I don't think "sliding over," in itself, is necessarily the problem. If a guard gets past his man on the perimeter, it makes sense for another defender to rotate in order to defend the path to the basket, sometimes taking a charge when the driver is out of control. I think everyone would agree that this is well within the game of basketball.

Instead, I think the problem people are trying to key in on is not sliding over, but sliding under: when the defender jumps into the path of the driver after he has already committed to a scoring move, specifically to take a charge, rather than trying to defend the path to the basket (a path which, in this hypothetical scenario, has already been given up).

And what about Syracuse? They always play a zone defense, so is calling charges against them ruled out? That would be the end of the zone defense, wouldn't it? Well, I stand by the idea that a defender, any defender, has the right to his spot. The real problem is in the way that the refs call the plays. Fix that, and the problem goes away.

[crimsonandblue]

This is probably ignorant on my part, but it seems to me that as long as the officials won't call a charge unless the defender goes flying across the floor, people will go flying across the floor in order to get offensive fouls called.

This is my issue with how charges are taken. And it's somewhat of a safety issue. In a Kansas game versus Texas, a Texas big took a bump in the lane (no call) and fell down backwards into Alexis Wangeme of UT. He then went to the ground and broke his wrist.

Maybe you leave the block/charge rule as is and make flopping a point of emphasis as a technical foul, such that if you go to the ground and it's determined not to have been real contact, it's a tech or a flagrant. Having good defensive position (actually having it, not jumping under a airborne player, which has always been a block), should still be possible and rewarded outside the restricted area. But flopping to the ground is not a basketball play and shouldn't be rewarded.

You should be able to take a bump, stay on your feet and still get a charge call. If you take a bump and flop, you should be an Italian soccer player.

[lotusland]

Seems worthy of a new thread, as it's a perennial debate.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebaske...g-block-charge

And lots to debate from this column, exemplified by these observations:

• "The block-charge... [has become] a nightly scourge."
• "Shouldn't we be thinking more radically about the block-charge call in general?"
• "Why is taking a charge considered a basketball play?"
• "What if we totally rethought the way players are asked to defend in the game of basketball? What if we made it more like pickup?"
• "Defenders... should be required to play defense: real, actual, you're-trying-to-score-and-I'm-trying-to-stop-you defense."
• "Instead of baby steps, let's take leaps. Basketball is a better game than the way it is currently officiated."

So Pickup is better? Shouldn't ball handlers be expected to dribble around the defender? If there is no charge call why not just lower your shoulder and create some room to operate?

[uh_no]

So Pickup is better? Shouldn't ball handlers be expected to dribble around the defender? If there is no charge call why not just lower your shoulder and create some room to operate?

It pains me to read that article...he keeps claiming the defender needs to do something...so i guess if the defender did a little jig while he was there, that would be enough to make it a foul when the guy with the ball runs him over?

here's an idea...maybe guys with the ball shouldn't go barreling into defenders willy nilly...