Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: Block-Charge

  1. #1

    Block-Charge

    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."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkD83 View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    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.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by gumbomoop View Post
    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?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by lotusland View Post
    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...
    1200. DDMF.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by lotusland View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    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...
    That's just what I have trying to say. The defender has a right to his spot, but the offender thinks he does, so he attempts to run over the defender. Given the feelings of so many folks around here, I fear a new norm in which the offense scores 150 points a game, and the defense just poses for pictures.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    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.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  10. #10
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckeye Devil View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    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.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by UrinalCake View Post
    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"?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhead View Post
    That's just what I have trying to say. The defender has a right to his spot, but the offender thinks he does, so he attempts to run over the defender. Given the feelings of so many folks around here, I fear a new norm in which the offense scores 150 points a game, and the defense just poses for pictures.
    There is a difference between having a right to your spot and jumping into the path of the offensive player. The first is, and should forever be, a charge. The second is what is causing the problems. Players are jumping in at the last minute to "take a charge" after the offensive player has committed to his move. Often, players are sliding in under an airborne player. Officials are so frequently incorrectly calling the charge that it has become an accepted strategy defensively. That's why folks are frustrated with the charge call. It has grown way beyond the concept of the rule.

    I don't want to do away with the charge altogether. As you say, the defender has the right to his spot. I just want to do away with the misuse of the rule. If it means making stricter definitions of what is and isn't a charge, then so be it.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by FellowTraveler View Post
    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?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Players are jumping in at the last minute to "take a charge" after the offensive player has committed to his move. Often, players are sliding in under an airborne player. Officials are so frequently incorrectly calling the charge that it has become an accepted strategy defensively. That's why folks are frustrated with the charge call. It has grown way beyond the concept of the rule.
    Sliding under an airborne player should definitely not be a charge. I would take it a step farther and say that sliding under a player who is in a position where he cannot stop himself should not be a charge. Even if the offensive player is still on the ground, if his momentum is carrying him forward and a defender slides in front, that shouldn't be a charge. As you put it, he has "committed to his move" and has no way to stop himself. It's kind of like roughing the quarterback in football. If the defender is charging at the quarterback and hits him a split second after he releases the ball, that's ok. Not okay if the ball has left his hand in enough time that the defender can pull up.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by UrinalCake View Post
    Sliding under an airborne player should definitely not be a charge. I would take it a step farther and say that sliding under a player who is in a position where he cannot stop himself should not be a charge. Even if the offensive player is still on the ground, if his momentum is carrying him forward and a defender slides in front, that shouldn't be a charge. As you put it, he has "committed to his move" and has no way to stop himself. It's kind of like roughing the quarterback in football. If the defender is charging at the quarterback and hits him a split second after he releases the ball, that's ok. Not okay if the ball has left his hand in enough time that the defender can pull up.
    I agree 100%.

    I'm a fan of keeping/instituting the actual semicircle in place as well: It enforces the idea that standing under the rim is not a defensive position that should be valued (since you can't do anything but take the ball out of the net from there). The tricky part with this is that the officials may then be too focused on "inside or outside" and forget to consider whether the defender established position before the offensive player committed to his move. So if it becomes a situation where I had to choose, I'd choose correctly calling the block/charge over keeping the semicircle rule.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    It's a problem without a solution. It's the Gordian knot.

    You can't get rid of block/charge completely, because then the offensive player can just shove his way into the lane for an uncontested shot.

    Personally, I don't think the rule is the problem. The problem is the enforcement of the rule, and it can't be fixed because the collisions occur in real time and we can't resort to a replay for every time there's contact. The refs have to call what they see, and sometimes they "see it wrong." You would, too, if you were a ref because you would lack the benefit of multiple replays from different angles that the home TV viewer gets to see.

    Those who are arguing that "taking a charge" isn't a "basketball play" need to have a talk with Coach K. I guarantee you he sees it differently. Our guys not only take charges frequently, they practice taking charges. They are coached to take charges. Taking a charge is a turnover PLUS a foul on a opposing player. It's not only a basketball play, it's a huge basketball play.
    "We are not provided with wisdom, we must discover it for ourselves, after a journey through the wilderness which no one else can take for us, an effort which no one can spare us, for our wisdom is the point of view from which we come at last to regard the world." --M. Proust

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    There is a difference between having a right to your spot and jumping into the path of the offensive player. The first is, and should forever be, a charge. The second is what is causing the problems. Players are jumping in at the last minute to "take a charge" after the offensive player has committed to his move. Often, players are sliding in under an airborne player. Officials are so frequently incorrectly calling the charge that it has become an accepted strategy defensively. That's why folks are frustrated with the charge call. It has grown way beyond the concept of the rule.
    If the offensive player is going to the basket, the defender is supposed to jump, run, slide or otherwise move into his path. The defender shouldn't be required to play matador defense just because the offensive player "made his move". I've seen both charges and blocks called that were questionable but that is nature of it. I think we should have more "no calls" when it is too close to call. I think the contact would benefit the defense more often than the offense so it's not necessary to call a foul on the offensive player when it is close. With a "no call", the offensive player is going to travel or throw up an out of control shot a lot more often. So if the defender is clearly in position before the contact, call a charge or if he is clearly late, call a block. Otherwise it's a "no call".

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Block vs Charge. You make the call.
    By magjayran in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-26-2012, 10:15 PM
  2. Better Title Game Block
    By HCheek37 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-09-2010, 08:55 AM
  3. How the new block/charge rule is affecting Duke's defense
    By feldspar in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-04-2009, 11:18 PM
  4. DBR Block Party
    By ForeverBlowingBubbles in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-12-2008, 01:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •