Block-Charge

[gumbomoop]

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

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/59221/change-the-game-rethinking-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.

[lotusland]

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

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/59221/change-the-game-rethinking-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...

[Jarhead]

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...

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.

[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"?

[CDu]

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.

[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?

[UrinalCake]

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.

[CDu]

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.

[rsvman]

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.

[lotusland]

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".

[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.

[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.

[UrinalCake]

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.

Duke absolutely draws a ton of charges and it's a huge component of our defense. But the reason we do it is because of the way the rules are written and interpreted. If we didn't get those calls, we wouldn't do it. And that's what we're discussing here, changing the rules so that certain plays are no longer charges. If that were to happen, Coach K would adjust.

I'm as big a Duke fan as there is but that doesn't mean I like everything that we do. And I would prefer that we played stronger, straight up D rather than falling over to draw a charge.

[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.

[Jderf]

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.

Right. I totally agree, actually. If the defender rotates into position at the start of (or during) the drive, he has the right to hold his ground and should do so. When this is done fluidly and consistently through effective rotations, I think it is what many on this board would call "beautiful defense." That is the way it should be played.

However, what people here are reacting against is a superficially similar play, but one which is less aligned with basketball fundamentals, and also which is much more dangerous. That play is when the perimeter guard beats his defender and makes a move towards the open basket and the defender does not rotate over in time. Instead, the defender makes a late move to slide into the path of the basket, after the driver has already committed to a scoring move. When the defender does this, it is often with their hands by their sides or locked in front of them, not trying to make a play on the ball, but rather trying to draw a charge call by making the play look similar to the legitimate play in the paragraph above. This play, as I said, is much more dangerous to the players, and it arises not from trying to play good defense, but instead from trying to take advantage of ambiguous rules. In that kind of situation, it is the rules that are the cause of the problem.

Now, I'm not sure what rule changes could be made to differentiate better between those two similar, yet fundamentally different plays -- but I definitely agree with others here that such rule changes should be proposed, discussed, and eventually implemented. Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that the two plays are just so hard to tell apart without a heavy dose of replay watching, so I think any rule changes should target that central issue. How to do that? That's the question.

[Jarhead]

Right. I totally agree, actually. If the defender rotates into position at the start of (or during) the drive, he has the right to hold his ground and should do so. When this is done fluidly and consistently through effective rotations, I think it is what many on this board would call "beautiful defense." That is the way it should be played.

However, what people here are reacting against is a superficially similar play, but one which is less aligned with basketball fundamentals, and also which is much more dangerous. That play is when the perimeter guard beats his defender and makes a move towards the open basket and the defender does not rotate over in time. Instead, the defender makes a late move to slide into the path of the basket, after the driver has already committed to a scoring move. When the defender does this, it is often with their hands by their sides or locked in front of them, not trying to make a play on the ball, but rather trying to draw a charge call by making the play look similar to the legitimate play in the paragraph above. This play, as I said, is much more dangerous to the players, and it arises not from trying to play good defense, but instead from trying to take advantage of ambiguous rules. In that kind of situation, it is the rules that are the cause of the problem.

Now, I'm not sure what rule changes could be made to differentiate better between those two similar, yet fundamentally different plays -- but I definitely agree with others here that such rule changes should be proposed, discussed, and eventually implemented. Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that the two plays are just so hard to tell apart without a heavy dose of replay watching, so I think any rule changes should target that central issue. How to do that? That's the question.

We are pretty much in agreement, but I take issue with the defender not making a play on the ball. The only question should be whether the defender was in position before the offensive player moves into him. He does not need to make a play on the ball. He needs only to stay firm in his position, and the ref needs to make the correct call.

[Jderf]

We are pretty much in agreement, but I take issue with the defender not making a play on the ball. The only question should be whether the defender was in position before the offensive player moves into him. He does not need to make a play on the ball. He needs only to stay firm in his position, and the ref needs to make the correct call.

You're probably right about the "play on the ball" language, as there is nothing special about defending the ball itself (besides, you know, the whole putting-it-in-the-hoop thing). Defending the offensive player's body or path to the rim is just as legitimate. A better wording might have been "making a defensive play" vs. "making a late, dangerous, charge-motivated play." But yes, I do believe we are in agreement.

[Spret42]

Drawing a proper charge in a one-on-one man-to-man defensive situation, as the rules are written, is really, really hard. Drawing it in help defense, or out of a zone is a bit easier but is still very difficult.

One on one, man to man requires the defender, who is always reacting to the movement of the man he is covering, to react, anticipate where the offensive player is heading and establish the position so that the offensive player can be expected to stop his momentum and/or change direction. When it is reasonable that the offensive player can adjust his direction/stop/pull up and he doesn't do so and still barrels forward; THAT is a charge. (Someone used the analogy of roughing the passer vs. hitting the quarterback just after he throws, perfect analogy) To do that as a defensive player just isn't that easy.

The charge has been watered down in the last 20 years and has become a play that is seemingly called every time a defensive player can get in front of an offensive player, regardless of how late, and fall down and slide on his rear end.

Drawing a charge in help defense is a bit easier, but it still requires the defender to anticipate a position and establish it so the offensive player can be expected to alter his path or stop. When help defense slides in at the last second under a player that has already begun the task of leaping towards the rim, there is NO possible way a charge should be called. Some of the most egregious charge calls are the sliding in under a driving player who has a path and has begun to leave the ground in order to take contact and fall down. These just aren't charges. At that point, defense is played vertically (think Bill Russell moving with the driving player, meeting him at the highest point and blocking the shot.)

Whenever you watch a block/charge play you have to ask yourself, it is reasonable to assume the offensive player could have changed direction/stopped from when the defender "established" position. If not, its a block. Not a charge.

[Spret42]

oops double post

[lotusland]

Drawing a proper charge in a one-on-one man-to-man defensive situation, as the rules are written, is really, really hard. Drawing it in help defense, or out of a zone is a bit easier but is still very difficult.

One on one, man to man requires the defender, who is always reacting to the movement of the man he is covering, to react, anticipate where the offensive player is heading and establish the position so that the offensive player can be expected to stop his momentum and/or change direction. When it is reasonable that the offensive player can adjust his direction/stop/pull up and he doesn't do so and still barrels forward; THAT is a charge. (Someone used the analogy of roughing the passer vs. hitting the quarterback just after he throws, perfect analogy) To do that as a defensive player just isn't that easy.

The charge has been watered down in the last 20 years and has become a play that is seemingly called every time a defensive player can get in front of an offensive player, regardless of how late, and fall down and slide on his rear end.

Drawing a charge in help defense is a bit easier, but it still requires the defender to anticipate a position and establish it so the offensive player can be expected to alter his path or stop. When help defense slides in at the last second under a player that has already begun the task of leaping towards the rim, there is NO possible way a charge should be called. Some of the most egregious charge calls are the sliding in under a driving player who has a path and has begun to leave the ground in order to take contact and fall down. These just aren't charges. At that point, defense is played vertically (think Bill Russell moving with the driving player, meeting him at the highest point and blocking the shot.)

Whenever you watch a block/charge play you have to ask yourself, it is reasonable to assume the offensive player could have changed direction/stopped from when the defender "established" position. If not, its a block. Not a charge.

I disagree. Your definition gives a huge advantage to leapers who take off from further out. I don't think defenders in the lane have to step out of the way just because an offensive player takes off from the foul line. If a player jumps toward the goal with defenders between him and the basket, even if they are not perfectly set when he leaves the floor, he is playing out of control and a charge should be called. It's the ball handlers responsibility to keep his head up and dribble around the defender. Also I don't think you get a free pass through the lane just because you beat your man out on the perimeter. If the help comes you have to find the open man. Too many offensive players don't see the court because they just put their head down and go as soon as they see daylight. When the help comes you have to pull up or change directions to find the open man. You have to play under control. You could also say it's not fair for an offense player to jump into the defender after getting them in the air with a shot fake but the defender is "out of control" at that point so it's a foul.

[Spret42]

I disagree. Your definition gives a huge advantage to leapers who take off from further out. I don't think defenders in the lane have to step out of the way just because an offensive player takes off from the foul line. If a player jumps toward the goal with defenders between him and the basket, even if they are not perfectly set when he leaves the floor, he is playing out of control and a charge should be called. It's the ball handlers responsibility to keep his head up and dribble around the defender. Also I don't think you get a free pass through the lane just because you beat your man out on the perimeter. If the help comes you have to find the open man. Too many offensive players don't see the court because they just put their head down and go as soon as they see daylight. When the help comes you have to pull up or change directions to find the open man. You have to play under control. You could also say it's not fair for an offense player to jump into the defender after getting them in the air with a shot fake but the defender is "out of control" at that point so it's a foul.

A great leaper having an advantage in basketball? Blasphemy!!!

I would never think a defender would have to step out of the way for a player taking off from the foul line. They would have a tremendous amount of options, time their own leap to guard the rim, in order to force a pass or block the shot, or which mostly likely not be a dunk, dunking from the foul line in a game is a pretty rare occurrence. If the defender can anticipate a great leaper taking off from far out and establish the position before the great leaper commits to his leaving the ground, regardless of from where on the floor it occurs, you have a charge. The point is the defender must anticipate and establish the position, forcing the offensive player to adjust.

You said "Too many offensive players don't see the court because they just put their head down and go as soon as they see daylight." I agree, and if a defender can get to a position to penalize that, you have a charge.

The question of block/charge centeres around whether the offensive player could reasonably be assumed to adjust to the positioning of the defensive player regardless of whether his head is up or not. An offensive player having his head down doesn't mean a defender can jump into a position late and recklessly in order to draw a charge. If the offensive players head is down and the defender is in a good position where the referee can penalize the offensive player for not having his head up and reading the defense, you have a legitimate charge call. The onus is still on the defender to get in a position so that the referee can penalize the offensive player for having his head down.

[Spret42]

If a player jumps toward the goal with defenders between him and the basket, even if they are not perfectly set when he leaves the floor, he is playing out of control and a charge should be called.

I never said anything about being "perfectly set" I said "establish a position." If a defensive player has established a position (the phrase "perfectly set" needs to be jettisoned) before the offensive player commits to leaving the ground then a charge can be called.

I am talking about defenders moving into a position between an offensive player and the basket after a player has committed to leaving the ground. If you want to deny the advantage of being a great leaper and being able to take off from further out by making it OK for any defender to step in underneath that player go ahead, but I am not sure many folks are going to want to watch that version of the game.

[lotusland]

I never said anything about being "perfectly set" I said "establish a position." If a defensive player has established a position (the phrase "perfectly set" needs to be jettisoned) before the offensive player commits to leaving the ground then a charge can be called.

I am talking about defenders moving into a position between an offensive player and the basket after a player has committed to leaving the ground. If you want to deny the advantage of being a great leaper and being able to take off from further out by making it OK for any defender to step in underneath that player go ahead, but I am not sure many folks are going to want to watch that version of the game.

I've seen basketball played where defenders pretty much get out of the way when an offensive player comes through the lane. I call it the NBA regular season. Plenty of people like that brand of basketball better but I don't. Besides we have the NBA so why make college the same? I said before I would prefer a no call in many of these situations. If you jump in the lane with defenders between you and the basket and it's not a clear block or a clear charge let it go but if the defender gets to the spot first I don't see why it should be treated differently whether the offensive player is dribbling or flying through the air. I don't remember Kyrie getting called for many charge fouls because he could change speed and change direction in traffic, find open cutters and go up strong with both hands. I know it's exciting to see someone get posterized but I prefer to watch a talented ball handler who plays under control.

[Jarhead]

Drawing a proper charge in a one-on-one man-to-man defensive situation, as the rules are written, is really, really hard. Drawing it in help defense, or out of a zone is a bit easier but is still very difficult.

One on one, man to man requires the defender, who is always reacting to the movement of the man he is covering, to react, anticipate where the offensive player is heading and establish the position so that the offensive player can be expected to stop his momentum and/or change direction. When it is reasonable that the offensive player can adjust his direction/stop/pull up and he doesn't do so and still barrels forward; THAT is a charge. (Someone used the analogy of roughing the passer vs. hitting the quarterback just after he throws, perfect analogy) To do that as a defensive player just isn't that easy.

The charge has been watered down in the last 20 years and has become a play that is seemingly called every time a defensive player can get in front of an offensive player, regardless of how late, and fall down and slide on his rear end.

Drawing a charge in help defense is a bit easier, but it still requires the defender to anticipate a position and establish it so the offensive player can be expected to alter his path or stop. When help defense slides in at the last second under a player that has already begun the task of leaping towards the rim, there is NO possible way a charge should be called. Some of the most egregious charge calls are the sliding in under a driving player who has a path and has begun to leave the ground in order to take contact and fall down. These just aren't charges. At that point, defense is played vertically (think Bill Russell moving with the driving player, meeting him at the highest point and blocking the shot.)

Whenever you watch a block/charge play you have to ask yourself, it is reasonable to assume the offensive player could have changed direction/stopped from when the defender "established" position. If not, its a block. Not a charge.
Okay, yes, it's difficult for a defender to take a legal charge, slightly more so in a help defense. It is also difficult for a shooter to avoid contacting a defender that suddenly takes a legal position on the path he has chosen. In both cases, isn't that part of the required skill set for players? An offensive player running into defenders is often referred to as playing out of control, and a defensive player who can't stand his ground is called a flopper. As for Bill Russell, he also committed his share of fouls in those shot blocking plays, but his skill set was more often a factor in avoiding the foul.

When it comes to how long a defender must be in his defensive position before an offensive player gets to him no rule comes to mind. How much time is needed to allow the guy with the ball to avoid contact when confronted with a well set defender? This is the most difficult part in this whole issue. How do we do this? Should we have the defender shout out, "Ringolevio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringolevio), 123, 123, 123," in quick succession. That's less than 2 seconds, but even Kyrie Irving could not avoid the collision in that amount of time. Not a chance for a rule like that. The best way to handle it is to develop the necessary skills in the referees to make the correct call, and in the players to avoid bringing on the call.

I just noticed the post just before this in which lotusland brings up Kyrie. He's the only guy I've ever seen that is the master of avoiding the charge, but the rules should not be changed to allow others not as good as Kyrie to avoid it. Let hem watch Kyrie videos over and over to learn how to do it.

[gumbomoop]

FYI - NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel attempts to clarify block-charge. Panel believes too many charges are being called, giving defense improper advantage. Read it yourself.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/60143/ncaa-shores-up-block-charge-definition

Eamonn Brennan, whose ESPN blog today excerpts the Panel's report, confidently asserts: "Every college hoops fan in the country is currently nodding in agreement." Maybe over-confidently, as Brennan apparently has not followed this thread.