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

[feldspar]

I’ll start out by saying I don’t think it’s affecting it all that much. But it’s pretty clear that it’s frustrating. I don’t know if any of the sports sites out there keep track of charges drawn, but I’d be willing to bet that, year in and year out, Duke is among the top of the list among the power conferences. Coach K is a master at teaching his guys how to establish position on the floor and draw contact.

Last night’s game gave us another opportunity to see how the officials are treating the new rule. If I’d have to sum it up according to what I’ve seen and the chatter I hear among officials, this rule has caught a lot of officials on their heels.

If you haven’t heard the new rule, here it is in a nutshell: a secondary defender, by rule, cannot draw a charge when he is positioned under the basket.

Now, a lot of coaches either don’t know the rule or intentionally misconstrue it during the game. Last week vs. UConn, one of Duke’s players, I believe it was either Kyle or Miles, drew a charge against his man. The camera cut to Jim Calhoun, who began barking to the nearest official that “he was under the basket!!” Problem was, the charge was drawn by the primary defender, thus the rule doesn’t apply.

Going back to how the officials are treating the rule, it’s pretty apparent that they are treading gingerly in the early goings of the season, and erring on the side of calling fouls on the defense rather than offensive fouls. In no case was this more glaring than last night when Kyle, in the second half, set up just inside the low block at least a stride and a half before the offensive player made contact. It couldn’t have been more clear that Kyle was set, he was not under the basket, yet he was called for a block.

In the dozen or so college games I have watched so far this season, this is becoming the norm. I’m not sure why it’s happening, but my guess is that officials are following the “spirit of the rule” in the early goings of the season rather than the “letter of the rule.”

I am inclined to believe the NCAA will clamp down on this between now and when conference play begins, but if they don’t, Duke will really have to adjust.

[dyedwab]

...I appreciate your insight on this.

It seems to me this rule is fairly vague in its implementation - no line on the floor like the NBA, etc. That may have been a mistake on the NCAA's part.

But your right - this changes the way we have to play transition defense, assuming they enforce the rule as they currently are.

[PhillyDuke]

They need to stop flopping and play defense. Thomas and Singler were both in position to contest the shots, but they opted to take charges instead. I think that was a mistake.

[dukemsu]

I don't think the players have any idea of how the rule is going to be called yet. Something had to be done, though. The flopping throughout college ball had gotten to embarassing proportions. Oddly enough, it seemed to me that Wisconsin has adjusted. The flop had been a major part of their defense for years. They stayed on their feet pretty well last night.

[Sir Stealth]

I have always been a little uncomfortable with the importance of taking charges in Duke's defense, because it leaves to much in the hands of the officials. Every time an official has to make that call, so much more goes into it than just the initial impression that the ref had of the play according to the letter of the rule. A ref may be trying to even out closer calls over the course of the game, or may be influenced by a crowd, or not want to appear to be giving Duke too many calls, or may just misjudge the play, and on and on. This new extremely ambiguous rule change makes it even worse.

To a certain extent every contested play in basketball ends up the hands of the officials, and oftentimes taking a charge is the only good way to defend a certain play (especially when relying on weakside help), but overall, I wouldn't mind Duke putting less emphasis on the charge as the major approach to defense. The less the game is in the hands of the officials, the better.

[tbyers11]

Going back to how the officials are treating the rule, it’s pretty apparent that they are treading gingerly in the early goings of the season, and erring on the side of calling fouls on the defense rather than offensive fouls. In no case was this more glaring than last night when Kyle, in the second half, set up just inside the low block at least a stride and a half before the offensive player made contact. It couldn’t have been more clear that Kyle was set, he was not under the basket, yet he was called for a block.



Yeah, I was at the game last night and in the play that you reference Kyle was set well before Hughes ran into him and didn't appear to be under the basket. The ref who made the call (the tall balding one who looks kinda like Peter Boyle [either Steve Welmer or JD Collins] not Jim Burr) vehemently and repeatedly pointed to the floor under the basket while making the call and while Coach K argued with him. It hadn't occurred to me that Kyle was the primary defender and should not be subject to the rule regardless of his position under the basket.

Thanks for bringing this up. I am going to try and pay attention to how this is called in other games with respect to primary and secondary defenders.

[gep]

They need to stop flopping and play defense. Thomas and Singler were both in position to contest the shots, but they opted to take charges instead. I think that was a mistake.

I think I remember reading something awhile ago (age makes me not remember when, where, etc). But on the issue of taking the charge, "old time" players didn't "take the charge", but positioned themselves to play defense, go for the block, etc, not just stand there and *try* to get a charge call. I appreciate Shane, but go back a bunch of years, and I think the "normal style" was to "play defense".

Maybe the charge call should be abandoned altogether... you don't go for the block, steal, etc, or even get out of the way... it's a foul on you. In fact, I think it should be that if you go for the block, and both are in the air going for the ball (kinda like football), it's fair game... give the defensive player a chance for making a play. Of course, the refs will have even more discretion...:rolleyes:

[dukeENG2003]

the point of the charge call is to allow a defender to hold his position, and not allow an offensive player to just push his way to the basket. Its a necessary call in college basketball. The call on Kyle was possible the worst call I've seen in college basketball this year. If you look in the dictionary under "taking a charge" there should be a video of that play. Under the basket, as many have mentioned DOES NOT APPLY to the primary defender (not to mention he wasn't under the basket). I think he would have been outside the NBA line even (which is a bigger area than the imaginary college area).

To me, the call thats not made often enough is the no call. If the defender is set, and the offensive player jumps into them, let them play. Ref's feel compelled to blow the whistle on contact, which means they have to call one or the other. This is why you see people trying to draw the charge so much. They KNOW a foul will be called. If they don't fall down, it will more than likely be a block call. More no calls would lead to less flopping IMO.

[calltheobvious]

I think I remember reading something awhile ago (age makes me not remember when, where, etc). But on the issue of taking the charge, "old time" players didn't "take the charge", but positioned themselves to play defense, go for the block, etc, not just stand there and *try* to get a charge call. I appreciate Shane, but go back a bunch of years, and I think the "normal style" was to "play defense".

Maybe the charge call should be abandoned altogether... you don't go for the block, steal, etc, or even get out of the way... it's a foul on you. In fact, I think it should be that if you go for the block, and both are in the air going for the ball (kinda like football), it's fair game... give the defensive player a chance for making a play. Of course, the refs will have even more discretion...:rolleyes:


So I have terrible hands, can't dribble a lick, can't shoot, and don't know how to set a screen. But my team is down to five players, so my coach decides that it's best to have me on the floor on the defensive end 100% of the time than to make things worse by having me even cross mid-court on offense. I decide to just stand, statue-like in the middle of the defensive lane. My point-guard gets pick-pocketed up top on the offenive end, and the opponent begins dribbling down the middle of the court, straight at me, at full speed. You're saying that he should be allowed to completely plow the stationary me rather than being required by rule to dribble around me to dunk? Really?

Also, your "as long as you're going for the ball..." rule would get people hurt. Badly. Often.

[UrinalCake]

Unfortunately, this new rule does not help us very much on the offensive end, as our bigs are not aggressive enough to take it at the defender in situations where they could draw a blocking foul. Hopefully that will change.

Defensively, I do think that we have enough size that our bigs should be going for blocks or at least defending straight up rather than trying to draw charges. It looks really ridiculous when a guard goes up for a shot and one of our big guys flies backwards, despite outweighing the shooter by 50 pounds. I also believe that once a player develops a reputation for flopping, the refs are going to be more prone to call against them.

[Zeke]

As I understand it, the new block/charge rule was started to reduce injury. Now that could have been implemented the other way around in that the offensive player could have been guilty of a charge if he collided with a set defensive player under the basket. What we really see is an offensive player who is so out of control that he CAN'T pull up for a short jumper.
Another pet peeve that I have is the "no call". Darn it, there are rules to this game and to put it into the hands of referees as to whether or what rules are to be called leads to chaos - nobody knows what game is going to be played tonight. If you doubt me, watch a Big 10 or some teams in the Big East and you see football without pads (maybe rugby). An ACC game is more tightly called but still a good deal different than the way basketball was called - say 30yrs ago. Often when I see an ACC team playing a Big 10 team they look timid - I though that they were not use to playing that physical a game and it takes them a while to adjust. Putting judgment into the hands of a ref about calls is a bad idea, in that it leads to bias in the calls - either intentionally or unintentionally. There is no such thing as a "good no-call", there is only a missed call.

[NSDukeFan]

They need to stop flopping and play defense. Thomas and Singler were both in position to contest the shots, but they opted to take charges instead. I think that was a mistake.
I believe moving your feet to get in a position that a player can't get to the basket without pushing you is playing defense.


Maybe the charge call should be abandoned altogether... you don't go for the block, steal, etc, or even get out of the way... it's a foul on you. In fact, I think it should be that if you go for the block, and both are in the air going for the ball (kinda like football), it's fair game... give the defensive player a chance for making a play. Of course, the refs will have even more discretion...:rolleyes:
I guess I am so used to positioning and the law of verticality that I can't imagine playing like this.

There is no such thing as a "good no-call", there is only a missed call.
I am glad the refs don't necessarily blow the whistle on every shot or every physical contact and am happy about many no-calls.

[crimsonandblue]

Yeah, I was at the game last night and in the play that you reference Kyle was set well before Hughes ran into him and didn't appear to be under the basket. The ref who made the call (the tall balding one who looks kinda like Peter Boyle [either Steve Welmer or JD Collins] not Jim Burr) vehemently and repeatedly pointed to the floor under the basket while making the call and while Coach K argued with him. It hadn't occurred to me that Kyle was the primary defender and should not be subject to the rule regardless of his position under the basket.

Thanks for bringing this up. I am going to try and pay attention to how this is called in other games with respect to primary and secondary defenders.

It was Welmer. As for Singler being primary, assuming Welmer made the block call (wrongly) because of him thinking Singler was in the no charge zone, Singler would have had to have established himself as the primarly defender (i.e. established and maintained legal guarding position) outside of the no-charge zone for him to then take a charge in that zone. He didn't do that. He was a secondary defender.

But as was noted, the call appeared to have been blown, since Singler appeared to be outside the magic box.

The rule is generally a good one but the definitions and lack of painted semi-circle are ridiculous. It's like the opposite of the MLB strike zone. The no-charge zone is going to expand to meet the spirit of the rule.

[Carolina_Blue]

Agreed.

http://www.youtube.com/user/JaredAdamsDukieTwin#p/u/4/Xy2MIOK8HAM

http://www.youtube.com/user/JaredAdamsDukieTwin#p/u/3/d8PYOzzKkTc

http://www.youtube.com/user/JaredAdamsDukieTwin#p/u/2/gQGPVL5wCms

:eek::eek::eek:

Out of curiousity did you watch these before you posted them? If you watch the first two there is an obvious forearm being extended to gain offensive advantage, and if you watch the third the offensive player steps on his foot causing him to fall. Nice try.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abZkZHLx2_k

[feldspar]

Out of curiousity did you watch these before you posted them? If you watch the first two there is an obvious forearm being extended to gain offensive advantage, and if you watch the third the offensive player steps on his foot causing him to fall. Nice try.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abZkZHLx2_k

Now you're not only blatantly looking at things with your Carolina-blue glasses on, you're also trolling.

Last time I checked, stepping on someone's foot does not cause them to be launched 8 feet backwards.

[Carolina_Blue]

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?

[feldspar]

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

You commented on an aspect of a game that happened this week with a video from a game that happened three years ago.

It ain't our fault they don't teach logical fallacies at UNC.

[airowe]

Out of curiousity did you watch these before you posted them? If you watch the first two there is an obvious forearm being extended to gain offensive advantage, and if you watch the third the offensive player steps on his foot causing him to fall. Nice try.

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

[Carolina_Blue]

You commented on an aspect of a game that happened this week with a video from a game that happened three years ago.

It ain't our fault they don't teach logical fallacies at UNC.

Now, I would say that apparently they do not teach grammar at Duke either. Then again, on second thought that may be considered "trolling". I guess thats what I signed up for on a Duke message board for you to take grade school shots at me knowing that I cannot respond for fear of being banned. Well-said though I think you are a wonderful representation of your institution and I am sure the other posters are proud to have you on board. So I am not going to take it there with you.

[allenmurray]

...I appreciate your insight on this.

It seems to me this rule is fairly vague in its implementation - no line on the floor like the NBA, etc. That may have been a mistake on the NCAA's part.

But your right - this changes the way we have to play transition defense, assuming they enforce the rule as they currently are.

Can you imagine if there was no 3-point line, and the officials had to use their judgement to decide if a player was far enough back to award him 3 points instead of two? Officials are being asked, in the midst of a fast moving game, to decide if the player is under the basket or not. It is absurd. Paint a damn line.

[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... :rolleyes:

[feldspar]

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

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?:rolleyes: