Well more so than usual with the added bonus of endless YouTube clips from any number of angles showing a defender was/was not under the basket at some crucial moment. Joy.
When you read Ken Tysiac’s explanation of the rule which has now been approved by the NCAA, it sounds even more ridiculous than I first thought in terms of expecting officials to get it right:
If a help defender has even a part of a foot in that roughly 24-inch area and is involved in contact on a drive, that defender automatically will be called for a defensive foul.
Once more I wonder: How is the official supposed to be able an ascertain whether a player’s foot is in the zone with the arch on the floor? The rule by definition requires the official to know where a player is in relation to the rim/backboard. If that is the case how an official to make that determination without looking up for the position and down to check the feet movement at the same time?
What will happen is the officials are going to do the same thing umpires in baseball do which is determine their own “strike zone” within the basic guidelines. That also means the charge zone is going to be different based on the referee and quite frankly based on the speed of the play, the number of players in area obstructing the officials’ view so on and so forth. In the end there will be very little in the way of uniform enforcement of this rule and it sends shivers down my spine to think how much Karl Hess is going to botch this one up.
![[Bloglines]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/bloglines.png)
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
Why won’t they just paint the stupid arc under the basket on the floor like the NBA does? Is there some logical explanation as to why they won’t do this?
I’ll be willing to bet anyone on this blog that in ACC play Dook won’t get called as much for standing under the basket as they will in non-conference and tournament games. Then the Dookies will still claim there isn’t a double standard in how ACC refs call games.
No team in the history of college basketball has benefitted more from the dubious charging foul that is called when a player is standing under the net like the Dook. Shane Battier made a career out of the move.
chuckheel,
It takes four years to get anything painted on the courts apparently. That includes going through the NCAA channels and allowing time for the schools to factor in the change.
Karl Hess officiating with this new rule is and will be a subject of nightmares in the months to come. *shudder*
THF,
Why then didn’t it take four years for them to paint the new 3-point line when they moved that back? I think that is just another typical lame NCAA excuse, like all the rest.
The NCAA is quickly becoming more asinine and irrelevant as the years go by. Before long they’ll rank right up there with Bud Selig in terms of stupidity and idiocy.
Wow, the INVISIBLE CHARGE RULE. What next?
What this reminds me of is the NBA’s illegal defense rule. It was called totally at random during a game. No one had a clue why. It was like the refs had to call one on each team in the first three quarters. No one played strict man defense. Centers would sag into the lane, etc. The NBA finally dumped this rule. (There was a similarly idiotic illegal offense rule where the offense could be called for having 3+ men on the weak side of the court. I think this was called once in NBA history. Don’t know if it’s still on the books.)
Why I’m reminded was the illegal defense rule was just as arbitrary, several paragraphs of defense players having to stand within so many feet of an offensive player, and could only do certain things to switch/double team. The refs couldn’t tell if a player was switching or standing in a zone. Teams, announcers, everyone just took the illegal defense call as part of the game and shrugged. You could call illegal defense on every play. You will be able to call this invisible charge on every play.
I’m confused. Anyone want to dumb this down for me?
uncgirl50,
Basically what the rule change says is if a secondary or help defender i.e. not the primary defender on the ball establishes position in an area that is basically under the basket and is contacted by the ballhandler it will be called a foul on the defensive player. Under the previous rules a player could stand under the basket and take a charge. This rule prevents that from happening. The problem is the NCAA did not opt to follow the NBA example and actually paint a small arch on the court to denote where this “no charge zone” is at. Instead the officials are going to have to make that determination themselves while also making sure the defender’s feet are set, etc, etc, etc.
In short the rule is a good rule but without the small arch it will be very difficult to officiate and undoubtedly result in some crap calls.
chuckheel,
For all I know it did take four years to get the three point line changed. I know they allowed one full year between the time it was officially approved and when it was actually used. It could have been in the works for three years prior just no one talked about it.
Awesome, thanks THF.
just a lesser sign of how stupid humans can be. whether its taking 10 years to put a traffic light in at a fatal intersection(because that is too obviously helpful), or the NHL GMs outlawing blatant, nonhockey-play hits to the head(because concussions are great for the game. Yay concussions!), we get all bogged down in crap.
no arc makes it infinitely harder to enforce the rule, and because that arc would resemble…what, exactly?…some other sport’s boundary line?, and youre talking upwards of an hour to get it painted after all, better to just go half-assed.
lets just equip every ref with a tiny tape measure, and as the ball is headed back up court he can pause and check how far away he thought that defender’s foot was a minute ago. refs can’t even count steps taken, so how can they possibly manage unmarked distance without reference points, while watching their partner’s area instead of their own? lets just drop a 10ft tall, 3 ft diameter steel cylinder down from the rim. then no one can even get in that area, and if you stand in front of it for a charge, youll get a nice concussion. Yay, concussions!
human beings=stupid, as a whole.
If they said it would take a year, I would get that because schools need to budget stuff like that in. The exact quote I posted last week said it would take four years to go through “proper channels and committees” which translates to red tape.
we love red tape.
that much paint, gosh, youre talking a gallon only getting the arc painted…in 100 arenas? who can possibly budget that? i mean to cover that expense, youre probably talking…1/2 an order of nachos at the concession stand. no wonder they need to talk about it; super complicated.
^see? talk talk talk.
Maybe they should get rid of the three point line too, just let the officials decide if the shooter was from enough away from the basket to constitute 3 points.
^love it. we can call it a cost-saving measure.