I agree. And that is all that it means. "No offensive charge" does not equal "defensive foul". You are reading something into the rulebook that is not there. The rule you are citing is about incidental contact, not establishing defensive position or fouling. Correct. The official can use his judgement to declare contact that occured during a play to be incidental, and therefore not a foul. He cannot declare something to be a foul that is not in the rules. Check the title of the thread. Baseball umpires don't know what the word "shoulder" means.
The offensive player has protection inside that zone. He can't be called for an offensive foul on contact if a defender is there. Just because it says specifically, in writing, that a defender can't be called for a foul on contact, doesn't mean he can't. A defender, in any situation, can be called for a personal foul based on contact if he doesn't have legal defensive position. Standing still with your hands up is not legal defensive position inside that arc. If it was legal, then the NBA would have never put that arc in to begin with. They put it in to establish a boundry to help the refs determine blocking and charge calls. and it IS in the rulebook. Again: "The mere fact that contact occurs on these type of plays, or any other similar play, does not necessarily mean that a personal foul has been committed. The offi-cials must decide whether the contact is negligible and/or incidental, judging each situation separately." Incidental contact is a JUDGEMENT call. On the Yao play, the ref judged that it was not incidental, and that it was a foul. Per the rules, the ref can make this call, although his judgement of whether it was incidental or not can certainly be questioned. Contact fouls are in the rules. And since there is no such thing as legal defensive position inside the circle, then any contact sufficient enough to affect a player's shot (based on the ref's judgement) inside that circle is assigned to the defender, and not to the offensive player (per the restricted area guidelines). And that has attempted to be addressed by MLB. The NBA, its players, its uninion, the head of officiating. None of them have said one thing about this rule being interpreted wrongly (although the judgement of contact and what is and is not incidental has been debated).
I've been seeing a lot of talk here about a leaguewide conspiracy against Yao which is hard to believe. If anything there should be a leaguewide conspiracy for Yao. Yao's a ticket to the biggest market in the World and it would rake tons of money to see Yao playing in the NBA Finals. I agree the refs aren't as sharp as they should be but I think that's a far cry from a conspiracy against Yao. I think Yao's problems definately go back to a lack of agressiveness on his part. I think the NBA refereeing works like umpiring in baseball. A good consistent pitcher can stretch the strike zone since the umpire will give them the benefit of the doubt on close calls. I think the same applies for aggressive post players. If Yao is more aggressive consitently on D and O I bet refs will give him more leeway on calls.
It seems that if the ref was indeed making the foul call based on his judgement that the contact was not incidental, then it wouldn't matter whether Yao was inside or outside the restricted zone because non-incidental contact by a defensive player on an offensive player attempting a shot is a foul ANYWHERE on the court. And as Yao's position on the court would be irrelevant in such a case, there would then be no point in this ref citing Yao's position on the court as a part of or the actual reason for the foul call. Therefore, Codell's assertion that "the ref judged that [the contact] was not incidental" must be false.
Maybe this article on the Blazer's site will put this to rest: http://www.nba.com/blazers/features/NBA_Misunderstood_Rules-88956-41.html In there: Blocks/Charge: A block/charge foul occurs when a defender tries to get in front of his man to stop him from going in that direction. If he does not get into a legal defensive position and contact occurs, it is a blocking foul. If he gets to a legal position and the offensive player runs into him it is an offensive foul. In both situations, if the contact is minimal, no foul may be called. To get into a legal position defending against the dribbler, the defender just needs to get in front of him. On a drive to the basket, the defender must get to his position before the shooter starts his upward shooting motion. For most other cases, the defender must get into position and allow enough distance for the offensive player to stop and/or change direction. Restricted Area: Any player may be in the “restricted area” if the offensive player receives the ball in the lower defensive box. If contact between players takes place on this type of play it does not necessarily mean a foul has been committed. The official must judge whether the contact is negligible and/or incidental, judging each situation separately. ------------------- So right there, it says the ref has discretion to call a foul inside the restricted area, and since an offensive player (in the situation we are talking about) can't be called for an offensive foul, then I would think its clear that he can call a foul on the defender for contact at his discretion, regardless of how long he has been standing there. And thats the whole reason the line was put there. As a cut off point between offensive charges and blocking fouls.
It absolutely matters in this case. Thats why the ref made the remark about Yao being inside the zone. I think JVG's point was, that it should have been called on O'Neal since he initiated what little contact there was. The ref said since Yao was inside the arc, then he was assigned the foul (as non incidental contact). Its absolutely relevant. Why wouldn't it be? Enouch contact was made by both parties to warrant a foul call (non incidental) based on the ref's judgement. Because it happened inside the arc, the call was legally made against Yao and not O'Neal. The ref seemed to make that clarification of "inside the zone" to imply that he would have made a different call if Yao was outside the arc.
Well the whole point of thread as I see it is that the refs have taken the line to be a hard and fast rule of either a charge or a block, rather than actually using their own judgement and discretion. Meaning, they feel they must call something - either way - instead of just not making a call at all in certain instances, as they should have done for Yao's first foul tonight. They are in fact not using their heads or any discretion, as the rules call for. They are instead using the line as a crutch to defend their quick-trigger whistles.
Well, I don't know about you guys, but I don't always see a call made there. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. My whole point was, the foul on Yao was a judgement call on the ref, which definitely can and should be critiqued. IMO, his interpretation and understanding of the rule should not be questioned, since the rules, based on my understanding, says he can make that judgement call. But again, I don't think they made the call because they feel like they have to or have been ordered to. I think the ref judged that enough contact was made to affect O'Neal's shot attempt. They don't always call block or charge in every single time that rule comes into play. Sometimes they do indeed judge the contact incidental, especially when the offensive player makes a shot. I think thats why we see alot of late whistles sometimes. The ref is trying not to have to make a judgement call there, but sometimes has to if its clear the offensive player would have made the shot if there had been no contact.
after reading through this debate, i've come to the conclusion that Yao needs to park his a$$ in the "restricted" zone on every offensive possession. somebody, anybody needs to get an entry pass to Yao within three seconds no matter how many turnovers are created. then Yao can legally clear out anyone with his elbows, shoulders, hips, knees, head, etc. and go for the slam dunk or in his case a layup. Van Grundy needs to practice that play to death so that he can use it every time as Yao can finish it with complete impunity. no more offensive fouls called on Yao. on defense, Yao needs to always stay the hell out of the "restricted" zone and let Stro or Deke block ALMOST to the point of being flagrant, the hell out of any fool that tries to go for an easy shot.
I don't think it's quite that simplistic. Your reasoning that Yao brings money to the league may be true overall, but is it really true for every single individual who works in the league, with immediate dividends to condition their behavior into favorable calls for Yao? How many more dollars does Yao actually translate into for the average Joe Referee? Or the average Joe Baller? Or the average Joe Executive? Even if it does end up benefiting Joe, do they really think "Oh, Yao is increasing my salary by this amount, therefore, I'll give him this many favorable calls?" It's just not that simple. The benefits Yao bring to the league is indirect and may not benefit everybody affiliated with the league significantly or equally. Even if it does, are you suggesting that there is a conspiracy in effect to give Yao the calls then? As everybody's eyes can see, this is obviously not the case. Will Yao not getting calls to go his way actually hurt the bottom line of the NBA? Or can it possibly have an little or no effect? Will people really stop supporting the NBA and Yao if he continues not to get calls? Nobody has proven this either way. Yao will continue to play in the NBA no matter. The causes and effects and potential reasons for Yao not getting the calls are still unknown, but I do not believe that so many fans, old or new, knowledgeable or not, American or foreign, can be purely imagining up something that is so blatant. I believe that Yao has shown that he is much more consistently aggressive than he has in past years, and he has been penalized with offensive fouls on multiple occasions. Hopefully, this will change. However, even Shaq does not bulldoze over his opponents "consistently", but he doesn't get called for offensive fouls like Yao does. So what precisely do you mean by being aggressive? Do you mean getting away with fouling opponents consistently until the refs are sensitized to it? If anything, refs should be specifically trained against biases like these. If somebody fouls more, you call less fouls? What a system. If somebody kills and rapes more, you give them lesser penalties?
How would you know JVG's point? His point could have just as easily been that there should have been no call, as opposed to the offensive foul argument which you hypothesize about. On the contrary, it is quite ludicrous to contend that JVG or anyone for that matter would be calling for an offensive foul on O'Neal on this play, considering that the defender, Yao, was not dislodged on the play at all. O'Neil did not bowl him over. There was only neglible contact. So the question of whether it was a defensive foul or offensive foul is not at issue here. Whether it was a no-call or defensive foul is. Again, how you know what the ref was thinking is besides me. But regardless, there was no chance for an offensive foul call. The ref cites the restricted zone as his reason for the defensive foul call. He doesn't say he thought the nature of the contact warranted a foul call. He only cites Yao's position on the court - meaning that in his mind that is reason enough to justify a defensive foul and the world should accept it. Once again, the thread is relevant in that refs are using the restricted zone as the end-all determiner for making a call instead of using their judgement and discretion, as the rules call for them to do.
Just assuming since Yao was standing still and seemed to be kind of in a charge drawing position. Regardless though. The point is, the ref made a call based on contact, and since Yao was inside the arc, he called it on him. Again, regardless, my point is the ref made a call based on contact and even it was only neglible, O'neal initiated it, and thus, if the arc weren't an issue, it would seem he is more liable for the foul than Yao, if the ref felt a contact foul had to be called. We don't know that. We didn't hear the whole give and take between JVG and the ref, only what Worrell heard (and we don't know if he heard the whole thing or not, and if he did, whether he chose to report it word for word). This is an assumption on your part too though, since none of us are privy to the entire exhange between JVG and the ref. Well agree to disagree on this. I don't think they always make a call either way based on what I see. They make a call based on their judgement of the contact and its severity and its effect on the shot attempt IMO.
The overwhelming majority of the time a call is made - either way as a charge or a block. And just to point out further how little the refs actually use their heads on these particular calls.....if a defender has the back corner of his sneakers inside the restricted zone but has been set there all day, they will still call a block on him......but if the defender is fully outside the circle even though he wasn't really set and in fact was still sort of moving (even turning a little into the offensive player's path) they will then call a charge. Refs have completely gone brain frozen on this type of call and are using that line like it's the Gospel. And the first year or two since this line was put on the court, a lot of announcers actually bemoaned this practice by the refs. But I guess nowadays everyone's just gotten used to trusting and relying on the line anyways. It's a part of the fabric of our game
Two problems there: 1) Offensive 3 secs 2) The protection from an offensive foul doesn't apply if the offensive player is already in the lower defensive box.
So this is how you get up to so many posts, Codell. You take on several people at once in a single thread. Nice discussion though. This is what the GARM is all about. Just curious though, do you think there are instances in which fouls have been unfairly called on Yao in the past few games? Not just for the sake of argument or analysis of the rule book. Do you believe that there is a higher percentage of fouls called against Yao that are suspect versus the average Joe Baller in the NBA, or the Super Duper Star?
You are clearly exagerrating here. Thats the rule though. The same reason how a 3 pt shot doesn't count if a player's toes are on the line. It is the gospel and thats why its there. lol Just like the 3 pt line, the end line, the FT line, etc. Overall, I personally think that the block/charge call outside of the arc is far more blown call than the one inside the arc. The arc gives the most technical clarity to what is and is not an offensive charge.
Personally, I think yao gets the shaft on quite a few calls, but on the other hand, he gets away with more than he used to. The Mavs series notwithstanding, they have not been calling him for moving picks, over the backs and using his off arm to wipe out the defender on his spin move. He does one or all of these several times a game. If the officials really wanted to be tight and really had it out for him, they could foul him out in 10-12 mins. They don't though. His problem on defense is, and I don't think everyone sees this, is that when it looks like hes sliding over and jumping up straight, hes actually not. I think the refs are calling him for throwing his hip into guys, not his arms. He has the same problems Hakeem had (and to this day, I don't feel Hakeem was every officiated correctly). Hakeem never got the amount of FTs he deserved, but he got away quite a bit with things like reaching in, playing illegal D, traveling and wipining out his defender with his off arm on his spin move (just like Yao). I've never seen low post guys officiated correctly on a consistant basis and I don't think they ever will. Yao is just going to have to learn to adjust and live with it IMO because I haven't seen a player or coach yet that was able to change the way an official officates. Great player's (like Hakeem) succeed despite the refs, not sucumb which is why I said its ridiculous for the Rockets to walk off and forfeit to protest the refs. And I am sure Yao's pride and ability will allow him to overcome and not sucumb.
Yes, but the rules do not call for refs to use discretion on determining 3pt shots counting as a 2 or a 3. That line is meant to be a hard and fast determiner. The restricted zone line, on the other hand, does call for the refs to use their heads in conjunction with it. However since its introduction, refs have been using it only to clarify b/t charge and block, all the while ignoring the fact that one or other does not have to be called in every instance.
