Block/Charge Call in NCAA Tournament

[Willy2351]

Is it my imagination, or are a much higher percentage of close block/charge situations being called a block than we are used to in the ACC? This is not specifically in reference to Duke and is not to say there have been a lot of bad calls. It is just that only the most obvious charges are being called charges. Almost all of the close calls seem to be called blocks.

If I am right (always a big "if"), I wonder if it is the difference between ACC refs and other refs or if there has been some guidance given to the officials, perhaps in an effort to reduce flopping.

This is not a huge deal. I am just curious as to whether others share my observation.

[anon]

Maybe the NCAAT refs were instructed to actually observe the charge circle?

[DukeAlumBS]

I agree there seems to me the block charge has been called a bit more , and maybe ACC? That is interesting to look into going forward.
Nice point, have nice day.

Jim

[MChambers]

Maybe the NCAAT refs were instructed to actually observe the charge circle?

In one of evening games, perhaps the FGC-Gtown game, a player drew a charge while clearly inside the circle. Terrible call. That game was particularly poorly officiated, BTW. Even though many of the bad calls were in Georgetown's favor, it didn't keep the Hoyas from losing.

[Dev11]

In one of evening games, perhaps the FGC-Gtown game, a player drew a charge while clearly inside the circle. Terrible call. That game was particularly poorly officiated, BTW. Even though many of the bad calls were in Georgetown's favor, it didn't keep the Hoyas from losing.

A player can take a charge in the circle onlybas a primary defender. The block called on Mason against Albany looked like a perfect example. If he had stepped forward out of the circle, it probably would have been a charge.

[MChambers]

A player can take a charge in the circle onlybas a primary defender. The block called on Mason against Albany looked like a perfect example. If he had stepped forward out of the circle, it probably would have been a charge.
That was my point. The help defender had both feet in the circle, by at least 8 inches. It was an amazingly bad call.

[sporthenry]

The refs are instructed that if the call is close, to give the offensive player the benefit of the doubt. However, throughout the year, we have clearly seen this is not the case. As for the block being called more, I don't think it is a universal thing but more of a individual game situation. I've seen some refs who are still too quick to call the charge but it really depends of where the ref is from.

[rsvman]

I have noticed this, too. To me it looks like they may have been instructed to call it that way. Sort of like the "tie goes to the runner" rule in baseball. It almost looks like they just decided that anything that isn't a blatant charge is a block: "Tie goes to the offensive player."

If that's the case, it's not going to help us much going forward. Hairston and Kelly, in particular, are very good at drawing charges. If 75% of those get called blocks, we could find ourselves in some foul trouble.

[burns15]

I have noticed this, too. To me it looks like they may have been instructed to call it that way. Sort of like the "tie goes to the runner" rule in baseball. It almost looks like they just decided that anything that isn't a blatant charge is a block: "Tie goes to the offensive player."

If that's the case, it's not going to help us much going forward. Hairston and Kelly, in particular, are very good at drawing charges. If 75% of those get called blocks, we could find ourselves in some foul trouble.

Interestingly enough, and slightly off-topic, the "tie goes to the runner" rule is actually one of the biggest misnomers in sports. The rule actually states that the runner either beats the throw or he doesn't, and that he is out unless he beats the throw. So technically, the tie goes to the out.

[DU82]

Interestingly enough, and slightly off-topic, the "tie goes to the runner" rule is actually one of the biggest misnomers in sports. The rule actually states that the runner either beats the throw or he doesn't, and that he is out unless he beats the throw. So technically, the tie goes to the out.

Rule 7.08 (e) of the MLB rule book states the runner is out if "He or the next base is tagged before he touches the next base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner."

This implies that the defensive team must beat the runner, therefore the "tie goes to the runner" saying is correct.

[kmspeaks]

Rule 7.08 (e) of the MLB rule book states the runner is out if "He or the next base is tagged before he touches the next base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner."

This implies that the defensive team must beat the runner, therefore the "tie goes to the runner" saying is correct.

Sorry if this takes the thread too far off topic but Referee magazine had an interesting article talking about the "tie goes to the runner" concept. MLB Rule 7.01 says "A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out." which seems to contradict 7.08 (e). The article also said that going on sound (hearing the timing of the ball hitting the glove and runner touching the base) the human ear is capable of hearing differences that equate to less than half of a video frame. So an umpire could hear and correctly call a runner out while TV would show a tie.

[uh_no]

Sorry if this takes the thread too far off topic but Referee magazine had an interesting article talking about the "tie goes to the runner" concept. MLB Rule 7.01 says "A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out." which seems to contradict 7.08 (e). The article also said that going on sound (hearing the timing of the ball hitting the glove and runner touching the base) the human ear is capable of hearing differences that equate to less than half of a video frame. So an umpire could hear and correctly call a runner out while TV would show a tie.

to be fair, it depends on the speed of the camera....i don't doubt some cameras used in sports productions can divide time far more minutely than the human ear or brain can (hundreds of frames a second)

[Buckeye Devil]

Clarke from Butler did a nice no contact flop in the Marquette game yesterday and got the call. It was ridiculous. But what bothers me as much as the block/charge is all this nonsense with elbows. Basketball is not a non-contact sport and has not been for a long time. I understand if there is malicious intent but some of these elbows are a part of the game.

It should be expected. With the sissyfication of the NFL well underway, it should have been obvious that college basketball would not be far behind.

[Faison1]

There's an amazing amount of Charges being called, IMO. I think it really takes away from the game.

Just now at the end of the OH St/Iowa St game, Aaron Craft slides over and gets under the driving player for a charge. The guy from Iowa State was in the air by the time Craft was under him. How in the world is a driving player supposed to avoid that?????

The announcers said it was a great call because Craft was able to get both his feet out of the "Sphere". I thought it was totally bogus.....

[pfrduke]

There's an amazing amount of Charges being called, IMO. I think it really takes away from the game.

Just now at the end of the OH St/Iowa St game, Aaron Craft slides over and gets under the driving player for a charge. The guy from Iowa State was in the air by the time Craft was under him. How in the world is a driving player supposed to avoid that?????

The announcers said it was a great call because Craft was able to get both his feet out of the "Sphere". I thought it was totally bogus.....

Also, his feet weren't out of the sphere. So it was a block in two ways.

[uh_no]

There's an amazing amount of Charges being called, IMO. I think it really takes away from the game.

Just now at the end of the OH St/Iowa St game, Aaron Craft slides over and gets under the driving player for a charge. The guy from Iowa State was in the air by the time Craft was under him. How in the world is a driving player supposed to avoid that?????

The announcers said it was a great call because Craft was able to get both his feet out of the "Sphere". I thought it was totally bogus.....


A secondary defender is considered to be in the restricted area when any part of either foot is in or above this area.

the announcers had no idea what the actual rule is....crafts foot was clearly above the line, which by the rule, cannot be a charge...they blew that one and it cost iowa state the game

[BlueDevilBrowns]

There's an amazing amount of Charges being called, IMO. I think it really takes away from the game.

Just now at the end of the OH St/Iowa St game, Aaron Craft slides over and gets under the driving player for a charge. The guy from Iowa State was in the air by the time Craft was under him. How in the world is a driving player supposed to avoid that?????

The announcers said it was a great call because Craft was able to get both his feet out of the "Sphere". I thought it was totally bogus.....

Me, Charles Barkley, and the rest of the world agree with you. ISU got hosed!

[Willy2351]

I agree that the charge call on ISU should have been a blocking call on Craft, for two separate reasons. Most of us have come to expect inane commentary from Clark Kellogg. Jim Nance seems to be joining in the ignorant chorus these days, instead of correcting Clark. When so many fans know the rules, it is boggling when these guys getting paid buckets of money to announce the games don't.

[77devil]

There's an amazing amount of Charges being called, IMO. I think it really takes away from the game.

Just now at the end of the OH St/Iowa St game, Aaron Craft slides over and gets under the driving player for a charge. The guy from Iowa State was in the air by the time Craft was under him. How in the world is a driving player supposed to avoid that?????

The announcers said it was a great call because Craft was able to get both his feet out of the "Sphere". I thought it was totally bogus.....

Agree it was a bad call. Making the circle bigger as it is in the NBA should solve it. No way Craft makes it across in time.

[sporthenry]

Clarke from Butler did a nice no contact flop in the Marquette game yesterday and got the call. It was ridiculous. But what bothers me as much as the block/charge is all this nonsense with elbows. Basketball is not a non-contact sport and has not been for a long time. I understand if there is malicious intent but some of these elbows are a part of the game.

It should be expected. With the sissyfication of the NFL well underway, it should have been obvious that college basketball would not be far behind.

Thought I'd comment on this first. The Clarke one was a thing of beauty. He actually extended his arms to push off the guy so he could fall back.

As for the contact sport though, there is a ton of liability to be had in these contact sports, so if they don't do enough, they risk being sued. And I don't have much problem with trying to get elbows out of the game. What you'll have to teach the kids is to rip the ball through your stomach. But I suspect there will be some change to the rule but I'm not sure how they'll handle it. As it originally stood, you couldn't swing your elbows faster than your torso.

[uh_no]

Agree it was a bad call. Making the circle bigger as it is in the NBA should solve it. No way Craft makes it across in time.

that wouldn't solve anything, it would just mean that the questionable calls would occur farther from the basket than today's play.

You may prefer a larger circle, but I don't think today's close play can necessarily be used as justification for it

[sporthenry]

that wouldn't solve anything, it would just mean that the questionable calls would occur farther from the basket than today's play.

You may prefer a larger circle, but I don't think today's close play can necessarily be used as justification for it

I agree. Besides, refs don't really seem to look at it or point to it when applicable. The only real answer is to actually give the offensive player the benefit of the doubt. Even if Craft was in legal position WRT the restricted area, it still looked like a block. He got there at the same time or later and wasn't facing the offensive player. That seems like a questionable call which should have went for ISU according to the offensive player supposedly getting the benefit of the doubt.

[wiscodevil]

imagine the outrage if that was duke getting that call.

[77devil]

that wouldn't solve anything, it would just mean that the questionable calls would occur farther from the basket than today's play.

You may prefer a larger circle, but I don't think today's close play can necessarily be used as justification for it

You're mistaken IMO. With a bigger circle the help defender has to leave his man sooner and travel a greater distance to be set before the driver leaves his feet. In addition, the help defender's man is open longer for a potential dish.

In today's example, Craft would clearly have been in the circle or still moving to get out making the right call easier to make.

[Andre Buckner Fan]

imagine the outrage if that was duke getting that call.

It would be the lead story, rather than the buzzer beater.

Other than Barkley, they really tried to bury that missed call.

[chainsaw89]

When I saw it in realtime, I was sure it would be called a block. Not because of where his feet were on the court, but for the more apparent reason that he was in no way set before the contact occurred (much less before the offensive player left his feet). He slid into the contact feet first, leaning back and was still moving to his left when he was hit. If I was a Hawkeye fan, Id be far more upset that the officials missed the more fundamental aspects of this call.

[marinbobbyduhon]

It would be the lead story, rather than the buzzer beater.

Other than Barkley, they really tried to bury that missed call.

Exactly what I was thinking as this was being discussed by Charles et al.

[MChambers]

When I saw it in realtime, I was sure it would be called a block. Not because of where his feet were on the court, but for the more apparent reason that he was in no way set before the contact occurred (much less before the offensive player left his feet). He slid into the contact feet first, leaning back and was still moving to his left when he was hit. If I was a Hawkeye fan, Id be far more upset that the officials missed the more fundamental aspects of this call.
CBS had some officiating type on at halftime of the Temple game who seemed not to know that having one heel above the circle is the same as standing flat footed in the circle.

[House G]

Joe Forte discusses no-charge zone:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2011-11-08/new-no-charge-arc-to-clean-up-play-in-the-paint

[hurleyfor3]

Joe Forte discusses no-charge zone:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2011-11-08/new-no-charge-arc-to-clean-up-play-in-the-paint

Before everyone protests, it's not that Joe Forte, it's the other one.