The Restricted Arc

[vtcwbuff]

Collier drew a charge last night under the basket. Walz tried to argue that Collier was in the restricted arc. I think either Lobo or Lawson mentioned it but didn't elaborate on the arc rule. The replay showed that Collier's heels were inside the arc (over the line).

Does the rule require that the defender's feet be entirely within the restricted area?

 

[the Q]

Collier drew a charge last night under the basket. Walz tried to argue that Collier was in the restricted arc. I think either Lobo or Lawson mentioned it but didn't elaborate on the arc rule. The replay showed that Collier's heels were inside the arc (over the line).

Does the rule require that the defender's feet be entirely within the restricted area?

Yes.

It's the single dumbest rule in all of basketball.

I cannot stand that rule at any level.

 

[VAMike23]

Collier drew a charge last night under the basket. Walz tried to argue that Collier was in the restricted arc. I think either Lobo or Lawson mentioned it but didn't elaborate on the arc rule. The replay showed that Collier's heels were inside the arc (over the line).

Does the rule require that the defender's feet be entirely within the restricted area?

As I understand it, both feet have to be *completely outside* the line in order to be able to (potentially) draw the charge call.

If you are not the primary defender there are also some other considerations, but that's the gist of it.

 

[WestCoastPup]

There were at least 3 bad call last night (blocking wrongly called as charges and charges wrongly called as blocking...) UCONN positively benefited from all three that I saw. There were others phanom calls as well (benefiting UConn). Rarely have I seen a game so lopsided in calls... usually if the refs are whistle happy, they tend to get both teams pretty evenly...

 

[stamfordhusky]

As I understand it, both feet have to be *completely outside* the line in order to be able to (potentially) draw the charge call.

If you are not the primary defender there are also some other considerations, but that's the gist of it.

That is correct. Feet can't be touching any part of the line. Can't even be above the line not touching. As you say, there are a few other pieces. One is that it is OK to be inside the arc if you jump to try to block the shot. And another, of course, is that if you are the primary defender, i.e. the player who is guarding the player with the ball, then you can legally draw a charge anywhere.

I think this is a very good rule. It was in effect in NBA games for awhile before college rules adopted it. Most schools were in favor of it when it was voted on.

 

[CocoHusky]

There were at least 3 bad call last night (blocking wrongly called as charges and charges wrongly called as blocking...) UCONN positively benefited from all three that I saw. There were others phanom calls as well (benefiting UConn). Rarely have I seen a game so lopsided in calls... usually if the refs are whistle happy, they tend to get both teams pretty evenly...

One especially bad call that did not go UCONN's way was the double block by Crystal and Napheesa of the Evans shot in the first quarter. Crystal blocked the shot got out of the way and Napheesa blocked it then Evans fell to the floor on her own.

 

[Biff]

One especially bad call that did not go UCONN's way was the double block by Crystal and Gabby of the Evans shot in the first quarter. Crystal blocked the shot got out of the way and Gabby blocked it then Evans fell to the floor on her own.

Not to veer away from the OP arc question ...but I will because I thought that call stunk live and I only got madder when I went back to look. A clean double block. Amazing timing by Danger. Oh well.

 

[Bama fan]

That is correct. Feet can't be touching any part of the line. Can't even be above the line not touching. As you say, there are a few other pieces. One is that it is OK to be inside the arc if you jump to try to block the shot. And another, of course, is that if you are the primary defender, i.e. the player who is guarding the player with the ball, then you can legally draw a charge anywhere.

I think this is a very good rule. It was in effect in NBA games for awhile before college rules adopted it. Most schools were in favor of it when it was voted on.

Like many rules in basketball, many fans do not completely understand the rule and /or the exceptions. Primary versus secondary defender seems to confound many when it comes to the restricted zone. And of course, the rule is not always enforced from game to game; or even within a game. But I think it helps to improve offensive performance, and most people seem to like more offense.

 

[Padutch5]

Like many rules in basketball, many fans do not completely understand the rule and /or the exceptions. Primary versus secondary defender seems to confound many when it comes to the restricted zone. And of course, the rule is not always enforced from game to game; or even within a game. But I think it helps to improve offensive performance, and most people seem to like more offense.

On paper it’s a good rule. However it’s very difficult for a ref to call. They are looking for body contact and are supposed to look at feet at the same time.

 

[oldude]

One of the primary reasons that the restricted area rule was implemented was to prevent an injury to the player driving to the basket once they leave their feet.

For instance, if Gabby takes off 10 feet from the basket with the ball in her hand, heading for the stratosphere, and an opposing player planted herself in Gabby’s path, 2 feet from the basket, it could be extremely dangerous.

 

[JoePgh]

One of the primary reasons that the restricted area rule was implemented was to prevent an injury to the player driving to the basket once they leave their feet.

For instance, if Gabby takes off 10 feet from the basket with the ball in her hand, heading for the stratosphere, and an opposing player planted herself in Gabby’s path, 2 feet from the basket, it could be extremely dangerous.

I believe that even outside the restricted area, to get a charge call the defender is required to establish position before the offensive player leaves her feet for a shot. The defender is late, and is guilty of a block, if she sets her feet before contact but after the ball handler has started her jump.

 

[UcMiami]

Agree that the calls on block/charge were questionable and that Uconn seemed to benefit, but I thought the 'bad calls/no calls' were pretty evenly distributed. One question I have is, have they changed the women's arc to match the men's? Previous to this year every court had two arcs with the men's further from the basket and led to a bit of confusion.
The big issue for me is that you have two different refs making the calls based on the ends of the court, and they often are not in sync.

On that drive and block, I think they called the contact after the block as the foul, but that is often not called just as some serious body contact no drives was not called last night (one against Lou specifically.)

 

[Carnac]

I believe that even outside the restricted area, to get a charge call the defender is required to establish position before the offensive player leaves her feet for a shot. The defender is late, and is guilty of a block, if she sets her feet before contact but after the ball handler has started her jump.

It's a rule that is loosely interpreted. Many times, I've seen defenders draw a charging foul while their feet were still moving. My high school coach taught (and corroborated my college coach) us that as a defender, you MUST have your feet planted and you must give him a step BEFORE contact is made. The rule may have changed, or been modified, but that was the rule we played by. I don't remember ever drawing a charging call if my feet were still moving. I got called for blocking many times for not giving the offensive player a step. Finally, I got it. If you play long enough, you learn, plus I got tired of getting yelled at.

 

[Biff]

On that drive and block, I think they called the contact after the block as the foul, but that is often not called just as some serious body contact no drives was not called last night (one against Lou specifically.)

If you are referring to the vid I posted with the "double block", Although the TV announcers never said anything on who that foul was called on (surprise), I believe it was called on Danger. Absolutely no body involved. But then again, I could be wrong.

Oh and yes, they got rid of the smaller arc and both men and women are using the same arc now.

 

[donalddoowop]

Scoop, a player can't play good defense if she is not allowed to move her feet. She is allowed to move back or sideways as long as she beats the dribbler to a spot before contact. UcMiami, I believe I know the play to which you are referring concerning KLS. There was enough body contact on that drive to warrant a foul. KLS should have been awarded a free throw, imo. However, you have to consider who the ref was standing there watching it.

 

[JoePgh]

She is allowed to move back or sideways as long as she beats the dribbler to a spot before contact.

That is also my understanding of the rule. KLS took a charge vs. Donyell Cliney early in the South Carolina game that fit this description. It was along the baseline, and KLS was still moving sideways (towards the baseline) when Cliney turned towards the basket and bumped into her. But since she reached the baseline before Cliney did, it was a charge. It is not always called that way.

 

[SVCBeercats]

Collier drew a charge last night under the basket. Walz tried to argue that Collier was in the restricted arc. I think either Lobo or Lawson mentioned it but didn't elaborate on the arc rule. The replay showed that Collier's heels were inside the arc (over the line). Does the rule require that the defender's feet be entirely within the restricted area?

Below is the NCAA rule regarding the restricted area and Walz was right to argue since Phee's feet were over and above the arc.

Section 31. Restricted Area The restricted area is defined as the area bounded by the outer edge of the restricted-area arc, which has a 3-foot radius measured from the center of the basket and extending to the face of the backboard. A secondary defender is considered to be in the restricted area when any part of either foot is in or above this area.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Scoop, a player can't play good defense if she is not allowed to move her feet. She is allowed to move back or sideways as long as she beats the dribbler to a spot before contact.

That is generally correct. The rules make it very clear. However it is not enough to beat an offensive player to a spot IF the offensive player is on a straight line path to the basket. In that case, the defender must be set.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Below is the NCAA rule regarding the restricted area and Walz was right to argue since Phee's feet were over and above the arc.

Section 31. Restricted Area The restricted area is defined as the area bounded by the outer edge of the restricted-area arc, which has a 3-foot radius measured from the center of the basket and extending to the face of the backboard. A secondary defender is considered to be in the restricted area when any part of either foot is in or above this area.

Nope. You didn't quote the relevant part of the rule. Specifically the rules say "this restriction shall not prohibit a defender, located within the restricted area, from attempting to block a shot." Since she was attempting to block the shot, the restricted area rule does not apply. She still could be called for a normal foul of course.

That is one of several clauses that limit the application of the restricted area. Another (not relevant in this case) is that the rule does NOT apply if the dribbler starts her move to the basket inside what is called the "lower defensive box" - an imaginary box designated by the two tick marks on the end line three feet outside of the lane and the second lane space marks from the free-throw line - which are about 12 feet from the basket.

 

[SVCBeercats]

I was responding to the original post which is about Phee taking a charge. You, I believe, are referencing the double block foul call. They are two different plays.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Not to veer away from the OP arc question ...but I will because I thought that call stunk live and I only got madder when I went back to look. A clean double block. Amazing timing by Danger. Oh well.

What I want to know is, had the phantom foul not been called, who would have gotten credit for the block? Would two blocks be awarded? Two half-blocks? A block credited to the team?

 

[CocoHusky]

What I want to know is, had the phantom foul not been called, who would have gotten credit for the block? Would two blocks be awarded? Two half-blocks? A block credited to the team?

Since the ball went out of bounds and two block shots cannot be credited on one shot attempt Crystal would have been awarded a block, Napheesa would have been awarded a deflection (rarely kept stat) and Louisville would have been awarded a team rebound and possession of the ball.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Since the ball went out of bounds and two block shots cannot be credited on one shot attempt Crystal would have been awarded a block, Napheesa would have been awarded a deflection (rarely ket stat) and Louisville would have been awarded a team rebound and possession of the ball.

When you say it like that it all seems so obvious.

 

[Carnac]

That is also my understanding of the rule. KLS took a charge vs. Donyell Cliney early in the South Carolina game that fit this description. It was along the baseline, and KLS was still moving sideways (towards the baseline) when Cliney turned towards the basket and bumped into her. But since she reached the baseline before Cliney did, it was a charge. It is not always called that way.

Like I said, I played over 40 years ago. The rule or it's interpretation has probably changed or been modified. We could move all we wanted to. But to draw a charging foul back then, both feet had to be firmly planted. I got called for enough blocking fouls to be sure of that. My guess is like everything else, rule interpretation relaxes over the years. Players now hang on the rim after a dunk without any penalty. I played college ball during that period when dunking was not allowed. Before it was outlawed, When you hung on the rim, it was an automatic technical foul, no exceptions.

 

[Roger G]

Nope. You didn't quote the relevant part of the rule. Specifically the rules say "this restriction shall not prohibit a defender, located within the restricted area, from attempting to block a shot." Since she was attempting to block the shot, the restricted area rule does not apply. She still could be called for a normal foul of course.

That is one of several clauses that limit the application of the restricted area. Another (not relevant in this case) is that the rule does NOT apply if the dribbler starts her move to the basket inside what is called the "lower defensive box" - an imaginary box designated by the two tick marks on the end line three feet outside of the lane and the second lane space marks from the free-throw line - which are about 12 feet from the basket.

In all the games I watched, I had never heard this. Thanks.