Mainly for those who have watched NC replay (or not)

[winlots]

On re-watch, we paid a lot of attention to the charging/blocking calls. Do you folks tend to question many of those calls, in either direction?

What would you think about a rule change that focused not on this "her feet were, or were not, 'set' " stuff (which we find to be very questionable often), but rather on which player clearly creates the MOMENTUM for the collision??

We observed many times when the defender (on either team....trying to be objective) was back-peddling like hell....to the max..... and yet was called for blocking, when there appeared to be absolutely no way to be out of the path of the offensive kid. Don't you have a right to defend and to be on the court? And, in the other direction, sometimes the defender clearly created the contact and yet drew the charging call on the O.

You folks think it might or might not be cleaner to modify the rule a bit? If so, would you focus on creating the momentum or on something else that you think would make more sense in what seems to us to have been an officiating nightmare for many years ? And, any other type of play or call that bugs you?

 

[UcMiami]

Nope. Because the person who is shooting is generally the one initiating contact because they are going to the basket and a lot of defenders try that 'oops let me sort of get out of the way while making contact and throwing the shooter off.
I do like the way refs tend to be more selective and allow more contact with 'no calls' in the NCAA and would like to see a few more 'no calls' throughout the season. There was that situation in the Baylor game that threw the Baylor fans into a frenzy late - I think Nina Davis driving up the middle and missing a floater as she crashed into Hamblin. A good no call, made easier in that Ruth didn't flop - add a flop in and the ref probably would have called a foul, but on whom would be a 50/50 proposition.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Inconsistency is the bane of good officiating. If a rule is not sufficiently understood so that it is enforced at some threshold level, it should be redone or the enforcers retrained or replaced. I'll make up a threshold, say 80%. Different officials viewing the same play should make the same call 80% of the time. In the charging/blocking/no call example, it should be a charge 80% of the time, or a block 80% of the time, or a no call 80% of the time.

 

[CocoHusky]

As UC says the "momentum" thing would always favor the offensive player. I am actually in favor of no change because most coaches can actually teach team to the existing rules. A change of rules would require re-teaching. I would also like to see more no calls on these collision plays.

 

[UcMiami]

Inconsistency is the bane of good officiating. If a rule is not sufficiently understood so that it is enforced at some threshold level, it should be redone or the enforcers retrained or replaced. I'll make up a threshold, say 80%. Different officials viewing the same play should make the same call 80% of the time. In the charging/blocking/no call example, it should be a charge 80% of the time, or a block 80% of the time, or a no call 80% of the time.

A little too simplistic - every ref and generally every reffing team is slightly different, and the aggressiveness and physicality of every team is also different. Add in sight-line, angle, speed, quickness, and build of players involved and their 'dramatic skills' and no two plays are identical. With all the variabilities most coaches and players are content to hope for consistency within a single game at both ends of the floor - and they speak of adjusting to how the refs are calling a game. The worst games are the ones where the refs call absolutely everything or alternately where they call absolutely nothing.
I actually think the charge/block call is quite consistently called within games and really across games - people may dislike the foul call that was made on Kia on a break-away drive in the NC game, but that situation occurs all the time in games and is called probably 95+% of the time and is called against the defensive player. So it is consistent and I didn't remember Kia having any problem with it, it is after all a call she consistently looks to draw herself on lay-ups.
Drop your shoulder into a defender and it is a charge all the time, extend your arm to clear space and it is a charge, fail to move your feet and get in front as a player looks to get past you and it is a block as Stewart did a few times in the FF.
There was one play in the NC where Stewart stumbled away from a Syracuse player near the basket and the player got a easy open basket that I remember as the only possible missed call, but the camera angle was from behind the Syracuse player so it was hard to be sure.

 

[drweo]

I agree that something should be changed, but will leave it to basketball experts to decide exactly what. But I really dont like it when, for example, a player with the ball is driving towards the hoop and veers from the direct path to the basket in order to bump the defender and draws a blocking foul. Happens a lot.

 

[Vowelguy]

Jay Bilas has been ranting, correctly IMHO, about the overabundance of charging calls these days. It was an extremely rare call 20-30 yrs ago.

 

[JordyG]

I don't see a problem with the current rule. The truth is the ball handler reserves the right to freedom of movement. If the offensive player is moving to a spot the defense must beat that player to the spot to draw the offensive foul. Otherwise you will be called. Outside the restricted zone of course. Here presumably all you need is one foot to touch that line and planted or not, the D will be called. Some confusion occurs because of the direction the offensive player is moving. If the O player is moving forward he will generally be called. However, if he is moving laterally the defense will be called. Bilas' rant aside, defensive fouls for players driving to the basket is on the rise as well. It just shows how much the game has changed.

 

[JoePgh]

I remember one play in the Oregon State game where Sidney Wiese was driving to the basket and a UConn defender (I forget who) was with her step-for-step, and Wiese suddenly changed course from south to southwest, with her shoulder going straight into the UConn player. It was called a block, and no one seemed particularly surprised or upset. It is true that Wiese's change of course was to head for the basket, and the UConn player was still moving her feet, but because of the sudden change of course right in the direction of the defender (initiating the contact), it seemed to me that it should have been a charge.

I don't think the charge is called too often, although I can understand why people who relish a physical game would say that. If the charging rule weren't enforced, basketball would become like hockey, where body checks are OK and it is simply a question of strength who wins the battle. That is fine for hockey, but it is not basketball.

During his pro career, Shaquille O'Neal made a living by ramming has massive rear end into whoever was guarding him in the low post (no matter how stationary the defender was or how long his feet had been planted) , muscling up a shot, and scoring -- and often getting a free throw as well thanks to a blocking call on the defender. I don't think that is what we want to see in basketball -- certainly not in women's basketball.

 

[BroadwayVa]

On re-watch, we paid a lot of attention to the charging/blocking calls. Do you folks tend to question many of those calls, in either direction?

What would you think about a rule change that focused not on this "her feet were, or were not, 'set' " stuff (which we find to be very questionable often), but rather on which player clearly creates the MOMENTUM for the collision??

We observed many times when the defender (on either team....trying to be objective) was back-peddling like hell....to the max..... and yet was called for blocking, when there appeared to be absolutely no way to be out of the path of the offensive kid. Don't you have a right to defend and to be on the court? And, in the other direction, sometimes the defender clearly created the contact and yet drew the charging call on the O.

You folks think it might or might not be cleaner to modify the rule a bit? If so, would you focus on creating the momentum or on something else that you think would make more sense in what seems to us to have been an officiating nightmare for many years ? And, any other type of play or call that bugs you?

In the dark old days of the world of Basketball, Naismith plus 50 or 60, the rule for determining who committed a foul was---the player that "Initiated" the contact" . I haven't read a rule book in a few decades of a blue moon, but it appears from the ND "jumper-in-er's" to the Syracuse bump and grinders that the defender who is jumped into is now the offending player. If that isn't the case: A whole generation of REF's need to be retrained. I bow to the more RULE knowledgeable posters and seeks elucidation.

 

[BroadwayVa]

I remember one play in the Oregon State game where Sidney Wiese was driving to the basket and a UConn defender (I forget who) was with her step-for-step, and Wiese suddenly changed course from south to southwest, with her shoulder going straight into the UConn player. It was called a block, and no one seemed particularly surprised or upset. It is true that Wiese's change of course was to head for the basket, and the UConn player was still moving her feet, but because of the sudden change of course right in the direction of the defender (initiating the contact), it seemed to me that it should have been a charge.

I don't think the charge is called too often, although I can understand why people who relish a physical game would say that. If the charging rule weren't enforced, basketball would become like hockey, where body checks are OK and it is simply a question of strength who wins the battle. That is fine for hockey, but it is not basketball.

During his pro career, Shaquille O'Neal made a living by ramming has massive rear end into whoever was guarding him in the low post (no matter how stationary the defender was or how long his feet had been planted) , muscling up a shot, and scoring -- and often getting a free throw as well thanks to a blocking call on the defender. I don't think that is what we want to see in basketball -- certainly not in women's basketball.

Apparently you and I are of the same belief school.
The Pro game has evolved from city parks, school yards, playgrounds and to some has enhanced the game.
At one time, many many many years ago, I liked and watched Pro basketball. To me it no longer represents the game envisioned by Canadian/Springfield James A. Naismith so I don't watch it.
Uconn, Geno (and company) his teams ALL, while not perfect and at times reflect the current calls is a pleasure to watch. Notre Dame, a Catholic School, I've written to the Pope complaining about the immoral, illegal jumping into defenders --but have yet to receive a response. Is Pope Pius the 12th still the guy in charge??

 

[BroadwayVa]

As UC says the "momentum" thing would always favor the offensive player. I am actually in favor of no change because most coaches can actually teach team to the existing rules. A change of rules would require re-teaching. I would also like to see more no calls on these collision plays.

Rather than any call of fouls --I'll take the "no calls" but I would like a consistent call made on the Offensive player jumping into and initiating the "collision" . There are 3 Officials in most, if not all, College WBB games the viewing angle and the ability to "see" fouls was the reason for the 3rd--obviously, humans, make errors.
I don't like imperfection but accept it if the imperfection works towards both teams--evenly..

 

[HardHatGuy#2]

One of the primary proscriptions in basketball, the one that single-handedly allowed the sport to survive its earliest days, was the outlawing of contact. When Naismith finalized the first set of rules, #5 was "No shouldering, holding, striking, pushing, or tripping in any way of an opponent..."; no contact.

Granted, minor contact should be acceptable so long as it is unintentional and does not impede the actions of a player. The concept of "initiating contact" is a fundamental violation of the rules of the game. When a defender is moving in a manner as to avoid contact, and the offensive player moves in a manner often referred to a "initiating" or "forcing" contact, then the foul should be called on the offensive player. Position of feet, movement of the body with respect to the court surface, etc. have no meaning outside of relativity to play.

The idea of "backing down" another player is a borderline obscenity. Prior to its clarification, the rule change on hand-checking was an abomination. Both represent extremes that should not be condoned.

All said, I don't believe in calling a foul every time a player breaks wind (I did get a double technical foul in a game for that once, but this is beside the point), but intentional contact, especially when out of context with the game of basketball, needs to be called. Players and coaches will adjust to this, just as they adjusted to Knick-Ball and the Jordan rules back in the 80's-90's.

Bottom line: if the officials are consistent, then the teams have little room for complaint. The officiating for the UConn/ND games back in the 7-8 era was outrageously inconsistent, as it was in the Baylor/Louisville tournament game in 2013. All that we can ask, and rightfully expect, is that the Stripes call the game:

• Reasonably;
• In line with the rule book;
• The same way for both teams;
• The same in all quarters and overtime.

Do this and each team will have a fair shot at a victory, and whining will be minimized.