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

Re: Thoughts on reducing the number of charges

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Apr 3, 2004
      --- 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 2 of 12 , Apr 3, 2004
        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 3 of 12 , Apr 6, 2004
          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 4 of 12 , Apr 6, 2004
            -----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 5 of 12 , Apr 7, 2004
              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 6 of 12 , Apr 7, 2004
                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 7 of 12 , Apr 7, 2004
                  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 8 of 12 , Apr 7, 2004
                    > 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 9 of 12 , Apr 8, 2004
                      -----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 10 of 12 , Apr 8, 2004
                        --- 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 11 of 12 , Apr 8, 2004
                          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.