Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Thoughts on reducing the number of charges

Expand Messages
  • Nate Duncan
    I was heartened to read Mark Cuban s blog today and see that he endorses a doctrine I ve been espousing to my friends for awhile now; namely that far too many
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I was heartened to read Mark Cuban's blog today and see that he
      endorses a doctrine I've been espousing to my friends for awhile now;
      namely that far too many charges are called in basketball today. The
      emphasis on charges could be one of the reasons that offensive
      efficiency has decreased so precipitously since the 80s.

      http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/6437778354599756/

      I think these are excellent sentiments. The charge has become a bit
      of a holy grail for coaches at all levels of basketball now, and it
      frankly makes the game far less exciting. Instead of actively trying
      to stop the offensive player, defenders just try to get in a position
      where the referees will be forced to make a call. Another detriment
      to the number of charges called (and the corresponding increase in
      blocking calls when defenders attempt to take the charge but don't get
      there) is an increase in personal fouls. Seeing star players in foul
      trouble certainly makes the game less exciting for fans.

      There are a few other ways i've thought of to reduce charges that I
      think may work better than Cuban's suggestion of disallowing charges
      for help defenders. One idea is merely extending the no-charge circle
      under the basket all the way to about 6 feet away from the basket.
      However, this could be problematic because post players could then
      completely bully their defenders down low.

      A second idea is that a defender will be called for a block or get a
      no-call if they attempt to take the charge instead of going for the
      blocked shot or a steal.

      Another possibility is to give an offensive player immunity from a
      charge after he's released the ball for either a shot or a pass. One
      of the most maddening things i see in basketball is a player coming
      down the lane on a 3 on 1, dishing to a guy running in on the wing for
      a dunk, and having the passer called for the charge after he's already
      passed the ball.

      Do you think reducing the number of charges is a worthwhile endeavor,
      and, if so, what's the best way to go about doing it?
    • Mike G
      ... position ... detriment ... get ... foul ... Seeing star players in a cast doesn t do much for the game, either. Stepping in front of/under a driving player
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Nate Duncan"
        <nateduncan@h...> wrote:
        > ... Instead of actively trying
        > to stop the offensive player, defenders just try to get in a
        position
        > where the referees will be forced to make a call. Another
        detriment
        > to the number of charges called (and the corresponding increase in
        > blocking calls when defenders attempt to take the charge but don't
        get
        > there) is an increase in personal fouls. Seeing star players in
        foul
        > trouble certainly makes the game less exciting for fans.

        Seeing star players in a cast doesn't do much for the game, either.
        Stepping in front of/under a driving player is a dangerous act.
        Vince Carter has become a 3-point specialist -- when he isn't
        injured.

        Is there such a thing as a flagrant "drawing a charge" foul?
        Perhaps a guy who consistently gives the other team 2-shots-and-the-
        ball will find his way to the bench more quickly.

        It's a play that is encouraged at the college level, and utilized in
        the pros; but it's disgraceful nonetheless.

        >
        > There are a few other ways i've thought of to reduce charges that
        I
        > think may work better than Cuban's suggestion of disallowing
        charges
        > for help defenders. One idea is merely extending the no-charge
        circle
        > under the basket all the way to about 6 feet away from the
        basket.
        > However, this could be problematic because post players could then
        > completely bully their defenders down low.

        Both ideas sound unproductive. Good defense is still good defense.
        Bad basketball is what we're hoping to root out.


        >
        > A second idea is that a defender will be called for a block or get
        a
        > no-call if they attempt to take the charge instead of going for
        the
        > blocked shot or a steal.

        Still not there. Good positioning is one of the most fundamental
        aspects of basketball. You shouldn't be allowed to knock the guy
        out of your way.

        >
        > Another possibility is to give an offensive player immunity from a
        > charge after he's released the ball for either a shot or a pass.
        One
        > of the most maddening things i see in basketball is a player
        coming
        > down the lane on a 3 on 1, dishing to a guy running in on the wing
        for
        > a dunk, and having the passer called for the charge after he's
        already
        > passed the ball.

        But a foul is still a foul. An out-of-control player, with or
        without the ball, shouldn't be permitted to run amok thru
        bodies. "Having just released the ball" doesn't deserve to be a
        special case.

        A player who has left the floor cannot slow or veer from his
        course. From that moment, a defender should not be allowed to move
        into his path. Yet we see it frequently, as the rule has been
        modified: the moment of contact is what the ref sees, and the call
        is based on the defender's status (moving vs set) at that moment.
        But the real point of no return is when the driving player has left
        the floor.

        I don't know when or why this rule was changed. Or was a rule
        clarified, to the advantage of the defender?

        Players and coaches would have to relearn a major aspect of the
        game. Rather than patting players on the back, calling
        them "courageous", and commending their hustle, send them a fine for
        flagrantly jeopardizing another player's health, on top of a foul
        and the ball out for the other team.


        mike G
      • Dean Oliver
        I personally thought that this idea was one of the worst I have ever seen. Taking away the ability of help defenders to draw charges would completely kill the
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          I personally thought that this idea was one of the worst I have ever
          seen. Taking away the ability of help defenders to draw charges would
          completely kill the concept of help defense. If I'm an offensive guy,
          as soon as I get by my man, I look for a defender to bang into just so
          I can draw a foul. Hell, I charge into him madly and throw up a shot
          because, by rule, that cannot be a foul on me. The game actually gets
          more dangerous if it isn't just ludicrous.

          Mark said months ago here that the game should just be called by the
          book. I agree with that. Rick Barry has said the same thing. You
          just have to follow the rules in calling charges and blocks. If it is
          unreasonable for an offensive guy to change his path because some
          other player slides in late, it's a block. If the offensive guy
          should have seen the defender there -- if that defender was clearly
          going to be the offensive guy to the spot, even if his feet were
          moving -- that's a charge.

          Gimmick rules like the current arc or any new arc or any rule that
          completely takes away the defense's ability to stop guys -- those
          should be eliminated.

          Besides, how are guys getting injured? If it's on charges, it's
          because the offensive guy is out of control. But mostly, it's on
          flagrant fouls and general brutality down low that has been allowed to
          grow since Shaq entered the league. And this gets only worse if these
          rules get implemented.

          DeanO

          Dean Oliver
          Author, Basketball on Paper
          http://www.basketballonpaper.com
          "Oliver's book provides an insightful framework for basketball. His
          approach highlights and simplifies the basic goals of team offenses
          and defenses, with an interesting description of how teamwork among
          players with different roles can be evaluated. This book is a unique
          and surprisingly practical addition to a coach's library." Dean
          Smith, Hall of Fame Basketball Coach, University of North Carolina


          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Nate Duncan" <nateduncan@h...>
          wrote:
          > I was heartened to read Mark Cuban's blog today and see that he
          > endorses a doctrine I've been espousing to my friends for awhile now;
          > namely that far too many charges are called in basketball today. The
          > emphasis on charges could be one of the reasons that offensive
          > efficiency has decreased so precipitously since the 80s.
          >
          > http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/6437778354599756/
          >
          > I think these are excellent sentiments. The charge has become a bit
          > of a holy grail for coaches at all levels of basketball now, and it
          > frankly makes the game far less exciting. Instead of actively trying
          > to stop the offensive player, defenders just try to get in a position
          > where the referees will be forced to make a call. Another detriment
          > to the number of charges called (and the corresponding increase in
          > blocking calls when defenders attempt to take the charge but don't get
          > there) is an increase in personal fouls. Seeing star players in foul
          > trouble certainly makes the game less exciting for fans.
          >
          > There are a few other ways i've thought of to reduce charges that I
          > think may work better than Cuban's suggestion of disallowing charges
          > for help defenders. One idea is merely extending the no-charge circle
          > under the basket all the way to about 6 feet away from the basket.
          > However, this could be problematic because post players could then
          > completely bully their defenders down low.
          >
          > A second idea is that a defender will be called for a block or get a
          > no-call if they attempt to take the charge instead of going for the
          > blocked shot or a steal.
          >
          > Another possibility is to give an offensive player immunity from a
          > charge after he's released the ball for either a shot or a pass. One
          > of the most maddening things i see in basketball is a player coming
          > down the lane on a 3 on 1, dishing to a guy running in on the wing for
          > a dunk, and having the passer called for the charge after he's already
          > passed the ball.
          >
          > Do you think reducing the number of charges is a worthwhile endeavor,
          > and, if so, what's the best way to go about doing it?
        • John Hollinger
          Actually, I like the arc and I wish college would add it. The entire concept of a charge is that a defender is in good defensive position. If I can shoot a
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 6, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Actually, I like the arc and I wish college would add it. The entire
            concept of a charge is that a defender is in good defensive position.
            If I can shoot a layup before making contact with the defender, it's
            tough to argue he was in "good position."

            The other thing they should do is clarify that lifting your heels in
            the air doesn't take away the blocking foul. Too many guys stand on
            the line and then go on their tiptoes, and refs seem willing to cut
            them a break. The league needs to make it a line drawn from the heels
            to the floor.


            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
            wrote:
            >
            > I personally thought that this idea was one of the worst I have ever
            > seen. Taking away the ability of help defenders to draw charges
            would
            > completely kill the concept of help defense. If I'm an offensive
            guy,
            > as soon as I get by my man, I look for a defender to bang into just
            so
            > I can draw a foul. Hell, I charge into him madly and throw up a
            shot
            > because, by rule, that cannot be a foul on me. The game actually
            gets
            > more dangerous if it isn't just ludicrous.
            >
            > Mark said months ago here that the game should just be called by the
            > book. I agree with that. Rick Barry has said the same thing. You
            > just have to follow the rules in calling charges and blocks. If it
            is
            > unreasonable for an offensive guy to change his path because some
            > other player slides in late, it's a block. If the offensive guy
            > should have seen the defender there -- if that defender was clearly
            > going to be the offensive guy to the spot, even if his feet were
            > moving -- that's a charge.
            >
            > Gimmick rules like the current arc or any new arc or any rule that
            > completely takes away the defense's ability to stop guys -- those
            > should be eliminated.
            >
            > Besides, how are guys getting injured? If it's on charges, it's
            > because the offensive guy is out of control. But mostly, it's on
            > flagrant fouls and general brutality down low that has been allowed
            to
            > grow since Shaq entered the league. And this gets only worse if
            these
            > rules get implemented.
            >
            > DeanO
            >
            > Dean Oliver
            > Author, Basketball on Paper
            > http://www.basketballonpaper.com
            > "Oliver's book provides an insightful framework for basketball. His
            > approach highlights and simplifies the basic goals of team offenses
            > and defenses, with an interesting description of how teamwork among
            > players with different roles can be evaluated. This book is a
            unique
            > and surprisingly practical addition to a coach's library." Dean
            > Smith, Hall of Fame Basketball Coach, University of North Carolina
            >
            >
            > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Nate Duncan"
            <nateduncan@h...>
            > wrote:
            > > I was heartened to read Mark Cuban's blog today and see that he
            > > endorses a doctrine I've been espousing to my friends for awhile
            now;
            > > namely that far too many charges are called in basketball today.
            The
            > > emphasis on charges could be one of the reasons that offensive
            > > efficiency has decreased so precipitously since the 80s.
            > >
            > > http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/6437778354599756/
            > >
            > > I think these are excellent sentiments. The charge has become a
            bit
            > > of a holy grail for coaches at all levels of basketball now, and
            it
            > > frankly makes the game far less exciting. Instead of actively
            trying
            > > to stop the offensive player, defenders just try to get in a
            position
            > > where the referees will be forced to make a call. Another
            detriment
            > > to the number of charges called (and the corresponding increase
            in
            > > blocking calls when defenders attempt to take the charge but
            don't get
            > > there) is an increase in personal fouls. Seeing star players in
            foul
            > > trouble certainly makes the game less exciting for fans.
            > >
            > > There are a few other ways i've thought of to reduce charges that
            I
            > > think may work better than Cuban's suggestion of disallowing
            charges
            > > for help defenders. One idea is merely extending the no-charge
            circle
            > > under the basket all the way to about 6 feet away from the
            basket.
            > > However, this could be problematic because post players could
            then
            > > completely bully their defenders down low.
            > >
            > > A second idea is that a defender will be called for a block or
            get a
            > > no-call if they attempt to take the charge instead of going for
            the
            > > blocked shot or a steal.
            > >
            > > Another possibility is to give an offensive player immunity from
            a
            > > charge after he's released the ball for either a shot or a pass.
            One
            > > of the most maddening things i see in basketball is a player
            coming
            > > down the lane on a 3 on 1, dishing to a guy running in on the
            wing for
            > > a dunk, and having the passer called for the charge after he's
            already
            > > passed the ball.
            > >
            > > Do you think reducing the number of charges is a worthwhile
            endeavor,
            > > and, if so, what's the best way to go about doing it?
          • Michael Tamada
            ... From: John Hollinger [mailto:alleyoop2@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 2:18 PM ... The thing that I don t like about the no-charge arc is that
            Message 5 of 12 , Apr 6, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              -----Original Message-----
              From: John Hollinger [mailto:alleyoop2@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 2:18 PM

              >Actually, I like the arc and I wish college would add it. The entire
              >concept of a charge is that a defender is in good defensive position.
              >If I can shoot a layup before making contact with the defender, it's
              >tough to argue he was in "good position."

              The thing that I don't like about the no-charge arc is that quite
              often, these layups are made ONLY BECAUSE OF CONTACT with the defender.
              We see this all the time (both within and outside the arc): defender
              plays the best possible defense, straight up, hands up, maybe jumping
              or maybe keeping his feet on the floor ... the offensive player clearly
              JUMPS INTO the defender, creating contact, getting a layin -- and a FT,
              because too much of the time, the refs will call the foul on the hapless
              defender.

              This no-charge arc reinforces that; there's not much a defender can
              do except get out of the way.


              >The other thing they should do is clarify that lifting your heels in
              >the air doesn't take away the blocking foul. Too many guys stand on
              >the line and then go on their tiptoes, and refs seem willing to cut
              >them a break. The league needs to make it a line drawn from the heels
              >to the floor.

              I'm not sure I understand the reference here; do you mean players are
              standing right at the no-charge arc and lifting their heels, to avoid
              being in the arc?


              --MKT
            • Nate Duncan
              I suppose there are really two questions that need to be answered here. The first is whether reducing the number of charges (and attempts to take charges) is
              Message 6 of 12 , Apr 7, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                I suppose there are really two questions that need to be answered
                here. The first is whether reducing the number of charges (and
                attempts to take charges) is a worthy endeavor. The second is how
                best to accomplish that.

                What I'd most like to see eliminated currently is the acting the goes
                along with charges. Very rarely is a player hit hard enough to
                actually be knocked over if he was attempting to stay on his feet.
                Guys either flop, or at best, position themselves in such a way that
                the slightest contact will knock them over.

                So, what does everyone think is the best way to get rid of the acting?
                Is it soccer style yellow cards? Is it calling a foul on anyone who
                illegitimately hits the floor in the referee's estimation? Is it a
                technical foul for flopping?

                In any event, I'd really like to see a return to the days when 6'10"
                big men tried to block the shot of a point guard who drove the lane
                instead of trying to draw the charge against him.

                --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
                wrote:
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: John Hollinger [mailto:alleyoop2@y...]
                > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 2:18 PM
                >
                > >Actually, I like the arc and I wish college would add it. The
                entire
                > >concept of a charge is that a defender is in good defensive
                position.
                > >If I can shoot a layup before making contact with the defender,
                it's
                > >tough to argue he was in "good position."
                >
                > The thing that I don't like about the no-charge arc is that quite
                > often, these layups are made ONLY BECAUSE OF CONTACT with the
                defender.
                > We see this all the time (both within and outside the arc):
                defender
                > plays the best possible defense, straight up, hands up, maybe
                jumping
                > or maybe keeping his feet on the floor ... the offensive player
                clearly
                > JUMPS INTO the defender, creating contact, getting a layin -- and a
                FT,
                > because too much of the time, the refs will call the foul on the
                hapless
                > defender.
                >
                > This no-charge arc reinforces that; there's not much a defender can
                > do except get out of the way.
                >
                >
                > >The other thing they should do is clarify that lifting your heels
                in
                > >the air doesn't take away the blocking foul. Too many guys stand on
                > >the line and then go on their tiptoes, and refs seem willing to cut
                > >them a break. The league needs to make it a line drawn from the
                heels
                > >to the floor.
                >
                > I'm not sure I understand the reference here; do you mean players
                are
                > standing right at the no-charge arc and lifting their heels, to
                avoid
                > being in the arc?
                >
                >
                > --MKT
              • dan_t_rosenbaum
                Perhaps this is the Hoosier in me who played high school basketball in Indiana (well really just watched from a nice seat on the bench), but I would hate to
                Message 7 of 12 , Apr 7, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Perhaps this is the Hoosier in me who played high school basketball
                  in Indiana (well really just watched from a nice seat on the bench),
                  but I would hate to see any rule changes that made position defense
                  less valuable.

                  Basketball is supposed to be a non-contact sport, and rewarding good
                  position defense is an important part in making physical strength
                  less dominant of a factor. In the absense of allowing charges, the
                  bump, hold, and slap technique of defense would become even more
                  dominant, further elevating the importance of Ron Artest defenders
                  relative to Kirk Hinrich defenders. I would think this would lead to
                  more emphasis on physical strength and jumping ability in the NBA at
                  the expense of fundamental skills.

                  And this ignores the obvious problem that once a player beat his own
                  man, he could trust himself into opposing defenders and get to the
                  line every time. This would kill shotblockers whose only response
                  would be to move out of the way as offensive players made their way
                  to the hoop. I suspect that outlawing help-defender charges would
                  greatly reduce blocks rather than increase them. It would also turn
                  defense into almost an entirely individual affair with practically
                  everything being determined by whether or not defenders could keep
                  their men in front of them. The value of good help defenders would
                  fall greatly as players learned how to bump into them on their way to
                  the hoop.

                  Cuban has some good ideas once in awhile, but this idea of outlawing
                  help-defender charges is one idea that has not quite got to the point
                  of being half-baked.



                  --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Nate Duncan" <nateduncan@h...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > I suppose there are really two questions that need to be answered
                  > here. The first is whether reducing the number of charges (and
                  > attempts to take charges) is a worthy endeavor. The second is how
                  > best to accomplish that.
                  >
                  > What I'd most like to see eliminated currently is the acting the
                  goes
                  > along with charges. Very rarely is a player hit hard enough to
                  > actually be knocked over if he was attempting to stay on his feet.
                  > Guys either flop, or at best, position themselves in such a way
                  that
                  > the slightest contact will knock them over.
                  >
                  > So, what does everyone think is the best way to get rid of the
                  acting?
                  > Is it soccer style yellow cards? Is it calling a foul on anyone
                  who
                  > illegitimately hits the floor in the referee's estimation? Is it a
                  > technical foul for flopping?
                  >
                  > In any event, I'd really like to see a return to the days when
                  6'10"
                  > big men tried to block the shot of a point guard who drove the lane
                  > instead of trying to draw the charge against him.
                  >
                  > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada"
                  <tamada@o...>
                  > wrote:
                  > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > From: John Hollinger [mailto:alleyoop2@y...]
                  > > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 2:18 PM
                  > >
                  > > >Actually, I like the arc and I wish college would add it. The
                  > entire
                  > > >concept of a charge is that a defender is in good defensive
                  > position.
                  > > >If I can shoot a layup before making contact with the defender,
                  > it's
                  > > >tough to argue he was in "good position."
                  > >
                  > > The thing that I don't like about the no-charge arc is that quite
                  > > often, these layups are made ONLY BECAUSE OF CONTACT with the
                  > defender.
                  > > We see this all the time (both within and outside the arc):
                  > defender
                  > > plays the best possible defense, straight up, hands up, maybe
                  > jumping
                  > > or maybe keeping his feet on the floor ... the offensive player
                  > clearly
                  > > JUMPS INTO the defender, creating contact, getting a layin -- and
                  a
                  > FT,
                  > > because too much of the time, the refs will call the foul on the
                  > hapless
                  > > defender.
                  > >
                  > > This no-charge arc reinforces that; there's not much a defender
                  can
                  > > do except get out of the way.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > >The other thing they should do is clarify that lifting your
                  heels
                  > in
                  > > >the air doesn't take away the blocking foul. Too many guys stand
                  on
                  > > >the line and then go on their tiptoes, and refs seem willing to
                  cut
                  > > >them a break. The league needs to make it a line drawn from the
                  > heels
                  > > >to the floor.
                  > >
                  > > I'm not sure I understand the reference here; do you mean players
                  > are
                  > > standing right at the no-charge arc and lifting their heels, to
                  > avoid
                  > > being in the arc?
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --MKT
                • Frank Marousek
                  Some can correct me if I m wrong, but I believe it there is a rule in the rulebook that makes it illegal to flop, the penalty being a technical foul. Problem
                  Message 8 of 12 , Apr 7, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Some can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it there is a rule in the rulebook that makes it illegal to flop, the penalty being a technical foul. Problem is, I'm not sure what rulebook it's in. I distinctly recall playing in a rec league a few years back refereed by IHSA (Illinois High School Association) refs where this was called. The ref who made the call called it a "bad-acting technical" (much to the amusement of all players involved).
                     
                     
                     
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:14 PM
                    Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Thoughts on reducing the number of charges

                    So, what does everyone think is the best way to get rid of the acting?
                    Is it soccer style yellow cards?  Is it calling a foul on anyone who
                    illegitimately hits the floor in the referee's estimation?  Is it a
                    technical foul for flopping?
                  • Kevin Pelton
                    ... With all due respect, Dan, your suggestion to keeping basketball a non-contact sport is _encouraging_ defensive players to create contact? I don t see
                    Message 9 of 12 , Apr 7, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > Basketball is supposed to be a non-contact sport ...

                      With all due respect, Dan, your suggestion to keeping basketball a
                      non-contact sport is _encouraging_ defensive players to create
                      contact?

                      I don't see taking a charge as good position defense at all ... I
                      mean who amongst us, when playing informally, has thought, "Man, I
                      need to jump in front of this guy and get knocked over"? It's simply
                      not a natural part of basketball -- it's an artifical product of the
                      rules.

                      I've been laughed at before, and will be again, but I don't believe
                      there should be a "charge" rule, per se, on the books whatsoever.

                      If a player legitimately has good defensive position, the only way
                      an offensive player should be able to get through him is by
                      physically leading with some part of the body, which is an offensive
                      foul and not "charging", or by travelling.

                      The incessant flopping could not possibly have been the intent for a
                      rule against charges, but the lax standards applied to the charge
                      have made it such that, as Cuban points out, we applaud players
                      taking advantage of the rules. This is not a problem limited to
                      basketball. In baseball, a base is only supposed to be awarded on a
                      hit batter if the batter has made some attempt to get out of the
                      way -- but, in this age of protective gear that protects players
                      from injury, they just lean in and "take one for the team".

                      Maybe I'm alone, but both of those things disgust me.
                    • Michael Tamada
                      ... From: Kevin Pelton [mailto:kpelton08@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:20 PM [...] ... And what would you have the defenders do instead?
                      Message 10 of 12 , Apr 8, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Kevin Pelton [mailto:kpelton08@...]
                        Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:20 PM

                        [...]

                        >I don't see taking a charge as good position defense at all ... I
                        >mean who amongst us, when playing informally, has thought, "Man, I
                        >need to jump in front of this guy and get knocked over"? It's simply
                        >not a natural part of basketball -- it's an artifical product of the
                        >rules.

                        And what would you have the defenders do instead? They're SUPPOSED
                        to get in front of the guy with the ball, and physically block his
                        path to the basket. That's about the most fundamental part of
                        basketball defense.

                        Obviously if he's already halfway past them, or has already left his
                        feet and can't possibly change direction, then the defender should not
                        jump in front and create contact and try to draw a charging foul.

                        But that's already taken care of in the rules. It's a blocking foul
                        to do that.

                        But if the defender gets into position first, then it's up to the
                        offense to either get around him or stop. Or barge into him, and
                        that's a charging foul.

                        >If a player legitimately has good defensive position, the only way
                        >an offensive player should be able to get through him is by
                        >physically leading with some part of the body, which is an offensive
                        >foul and not "charging", or by travelling.

                        I have always considered charges to be one type of offensive foul.
                        I don't see what distinction you're making. But let's go with your
                        terminology: you are recognizing the existence of "offensive fouls"
                        caused by the player "physically leading with some part of the body"
                        and hitting a player who "legitimately has good defensive position".

                        Which to me means, if there's some guy driving to my basket, I better
                        do something to stop him, and since tackling and grabbing are illegal
                        in basketball, my only option is to go and get between him and the
                        basket. If I get there first (and he hasn't left his feet or
                        acquired uncontrollable momentum), then I've got legitimate defensive
                        position and it's a foul for him to run into me. Obviously if I get
                        there late, then it's a foul on me.

                        How does that differ from what the current rules say?


                        --MKT
                      • dan_t_rosenbaum
                        ... Well, in my opinion not calling charges unless a player falls down has resulted more contact, or at least has increased its intensity. ... simply ... the
                        Message 11 of 12 , Apr 8, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Pelton"
                          <kpelton08@h...> wrote:
                          > > Basketball is supposed to be a non-contact sport ...
                          >
                          > With all due respect, Dan, your suggestion to keeping basketball a
                          > non-contact sport is _encouraging_ defensive players to create
                          > contact?

                          Well, in my opinion not calling "charges" unless a player falls down
                          has resulted more contact, or at least has increased its intensity.

                          > I don't see taking a charge as good position defense at all ... I
                          > mean who amongst us, when playing informally, has thought, "Man, I
                          > need to jump in front of this guy and get knocked over"? It's
                          simply
                          > not a natural part of basketball -- it's an artifical product of
                          the
                          > rules.

                          Come on, do you really want to go to pick-up basketball to justify
                          this position on charges? Players can dislodge an opponent in pick-
                          up basketball (a la Shaq) and no one ever calls that either. I do
                          agree that getting rid of charges would make organized basketball
                          much more like pick-up basketball, which again would put a premium
                          on physical strength and jumping ability at the expense of
                          fundamental skills. It appears that I am in the minority in
                          thinking that this is a bad thing.

                          > I've been laughed at before, and will be again, but I don't
                          believe
                          > there should be a "charge" rule, per se, on the books whatsoever.
                          >
                          > If a player legitimately has good defensive position, the only way
                          > an offensive player should be able to get through him is by
                          > physically leading with some part of the body, which is an
                          offensive
                          > foul and not "charging", or by travelling.

                          I am confused here as to whether "physically leading with some part
                          of the body" when a defensive player has position is an offensive
                          foul or not. I also don't understand how calling this an offensive
                          foul (which often is done now) rather than a "charge" would change
                          anything.

                          > The incessant flopping could not possibly have been the intent for
                          a
                          > rule against charges, but the lax standards applied to the charge
                          > have made it such that, as Cuban points out, we applaud players
                          > taking advantage of the rules. This is not a problem limited to
                          > basketball. In baseball, a base is only supposed to be awarded on
                          a
                          > hit batter if the batter has made some attempt to get out of the
                          > way -- but, in this age of protective gear that protects players
                          > from injury, they just lean in and "take one for the team".
                          >
                          > Maybe I'm alone, but both of those things disgust me.

                          If flopping is what disgusts people, all we need to do is get
                          officials to call offensive fouls in cases where players do not fall
                          to the floor. Remove the incentives for falling to the floor.
                          Again, I think the problem is officials not calling enough charges
                          or offensive fouls when players don't fall to the floor.

                          Go ask any of the millions of fans of college basketball who hate
                          NBA basketball, and I bet the charging rule is the least of their
                          concerns as a place where players are "taking advantage of the
                          rules." The interpretation of the rules on traveling, palming the
                          ball, being able to dislodge an opponent, and physicality of
                          defensive play probably are the reasons many of them prefer the
                          college game (and probably the high school game, as well). I would
                          put my dad and my father-in-law in this camp.
                        • Daniel Dickey
                          I still thiink it is COMPLETELY ABSURD that the defender has to fall to the ground to have a charge called. That is a REAL problem. When the defender falls
                          Message 12 of 12 , Apr 8, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I still thiink it is COMPLETELY ABSURD that the defender has to fall to the
                            ground to have a charge called. That is a REAL problem. When the defender
                            falls (possibly even "flops") - it endangers both players.

                            I play city league ball (as many of you). I'm 6'2" 270lbs. I play center.
                            Often "athletic" players like to drive half hazardly into the lane. Often
                            you can see it coming a mile away - I establish my position a few feet from
                            the basket - they drive past the defender and run smack dab into me - as
                            istand there with my arms stright up. I'm always called for the foul -
                            because I won't "flop". Refs have told me that I won't get the call if I
                            don't hit the ground - which is sad. Can you imagine if it was the other
                            way - and the defender could initiate contact at impunity - and would only
                            be called for a foul if the offensive player is knocked over?

                            Also - when was the last time you saw a defender jump straight up - the
                            offensive player initiates contact - and an offensive foul is called, as it
                            should be. IF the offensive player initiates contact into a player that as
                            jumped straight up - that is an OFFENSIVE FOUL. It's never called that way.

                            Dan

                            _________________________________________________________________
                            FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar � get it now!
                            http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.