NBA Refs don't understand the rules!!!

There seems to be a little confusion on the issue in question. The type of play we were discussing was a charge call right in front of the arc, not out on the perimeter:

"If (as in my example) the defender is clearly in front of the restricted zone line but still moving, then the correct call would be for a blocking foul to be called. But as I stated, refs are not using their heads on this. With only isolated exception, they are calling charges on such plays and simply going by only the restricted zone line."

 

Im not confused at all.

The defender can move and still draw a charge as long as he keeps himself between the ball handler and the basket. Thats why the ref makes the offensive foul call. Hes not calling it just because the defender is clear immediately outside of the arc. Hes calling it because the defender kept his position between the ball and the basket, which the rules says the defener can legally do.

 

Well I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you must have just been confused, as the discussion had been carried over from the previous night. But now it simply looks like you are repeatedly reframing the issue of discussion only to enhance your own points. We are going to have a hard time getting anything constructive out of this discussion if you continue to only be interested in saving face and looking right about everything instead of genuinely seeking answers and reasons!

Now moving on from your distraction of the issue, a defender who is not set and stationary right in front of the restricted zone arc should not be getting rewarded with a charge call. A rare exception may be if the offensive player had lowered his shoulder into the defender. But what is happening more often, however, is that refs are awarding charging calls to such not-completely-set defenders across the board simply for being in front of the restricted zone arc, regardless of whether they are set or not. The restricted zone arc has become an end-all crutch for the refs to rely on, foresaking their judgement and discretion in the process.

 

There is no distraction on my part, only a gross lack of knowledge on your part with regards to what a legal defensive position is.

That is absoutely 100% incorrect. A charge can be and is called quite often when the defender is moving. As long as he slides his feet in a manner that keeps himself between the basket and the ball handler, then the offensive player is not allowed to run into him and knock him over or out of the way when moving towards the basket. That is an offensive foul.

There are many more exceptions. One being the one I just mentioned (i.e. mainting position between the ball handler and the basket)

And AGAIN, the charge call can be made even if the defender isn't set. You are completely wrong on this or you just don't understand the interpretation of legal defensive position.

The arc has nothing to do with the call here (since the arc rule has to do with primary defenders; go look at the restricted area rule ...it applies to help defenders attempting to draw a charge, not primary defenders).

The restricted arc is a technical mark to help the ref distinguish between bocks and charges. Just like the 3 pt line is a technical mark to help the ref distringuish between a 2 pt and 3 pt shot.

In my judgement, I don't see the refs using this as a crutch at all except when when a block/charge call with a help defender comes into play.

If you are seeing the refs pointing out the arc when judging blocks/charges on primary defenders, then yes, they are completely wrong there because the arc doesn't offer the ball handler any type of protection from an offensive foul call in that situation. Nor does it protect the defender from a block call when outside the arc.

I highly suspect you aren't seeing that though. And if you are, then you aren't watching the same games I do.

 

Here is the excerpt in question from the NBA rule book:

If the defenders moves in conjunction with the dribbler where the dribbler can't establish a straigth line path, then the dribble can not run the defender over without being subject to a charge call.

 

I have seen some terrible calls against Yao, but I think threads like this get started basically because of the opposite of the title. I don't think its the refs who don't know what a foul is, I think its the YOFs who really don't know what a foul is because they are relatively new to the game of basketball, especially the NBA.

 

Codell, this repeated reframing of the issue makes it clear now that you are no longer interested in participating in a fruitful discussion in this thread. The thread starter himself was more than patient with you. But as he has also done, I will just leave you to have your last words.

 

You have clearly implied that a defender has no right to a charge call outside fof the arc if he is moving. Tell me you didn't (and then I'll show you the quote whereyou did).

That is 100% wrong and I just quoted the rules to prove it. Sorry you can't accept that.

Have a nice day anyway.

 

Yes, but his ever accepting this appears gravely unlikely. He is going to spin issues, assign implications and false statements to other posters, and blitzkrieg-post pages of irrelevant gibberish simply in order to save face and "win".

 

Most of the people just want fair treatment of Yao. If they call Yao for offensive foul like that, then other players like Shaq should have fouled out in the first quarter of every game. The refs often would call an offensive foul on Yao and then come back and call him for a defensive foul when Yao does exactly the same thing on defense later in the game.

 

Why are you trying to ruin a good discussion with poster bashing?

I could care less if you want to continue the discussion, but there is no reason to act like a child.

Again, have a nice day though!

 

Pssst. DD .......How am I wrong when I agree with what you just said? Are you wrong too then?

I specifically said I don't always agree or disagree with the refs judgement of whether a foul was warranted based on contact in that situation.

I merely argued that they CAN make that judgement based on what the rule says. Whether the judgement call is wrong or right is irrelevant to the discussion that was started.

 

In your short post, you made some bold statements. You called the thread starter a YOF (I would assume you meant it in a very positive way), and he/she doesn't know what a foul is, and he/she is new to the game of basketball, especially the NBA. What makes you think so? I am just wondering.

Moreover, you started with a disclaimer that you have seen some terrible calls against Yao, but you still think those refs know the rules, which leaves only explanation for those terrible calls would be that either refs are intentionally screwing Yao or the Rockets or both, or they are so imcompetend and dysfunctional that they coudln't think or decide clearly and logically, although they know the rules clearly.

If you don't think they do it intentionally, you are actually saying that you agree with the thread starter, but you still call him YOF and doesn't know basketball, so I would believe you are on the same boat as a YOF, right?

You have false statement, blatant accusation, illogical reasoning, and ignorant generalization in your short post, but looking at your signature, everything seems reasonable to me again.

 

This kind of labelling, sterotyping, and prejudice is what leads to racism, sexism, and classicism. Labels such as "YOF", or "liberal", or "redneck", or "(insert you minority) lover", are only invented by the entrenched, dominant, majority because they feel threatened and insecure about what they refuse to understand and tolerate.

It's becoming a dumb knee-jerk reaction now that anytime anybody says something good about Yao, or voices concern about unfair treatment of Yao, that person gets the "YOF" label, regardless of whether they're white or black or Asian, regardless of how long they've been in this board, regardless of how long they've been a Rockets fan.

You're a bigot, and we need less people like you in this diverse world.

 

Let me just add some fuel to the fire. I just realized that kind of labelling was coming from a guy who was so concerned that American value would be lost, because liberals wanted to take Christmas away.

 

Usually......Damnable Dan Langhi !!

DD

 

I am late to this discussion, and have not read all posts. So if I repeat somebody's point, just ignore me.

I agree with Dr Robert. The rule does not nullify defensive positioning in the RZ. It only nullifies charging foul calls. So you should not be called defensive foul simply because you are in the RZ and there is some contact. You have to do something that violate general defensive rules to be called foul.

If, according to Worrell, the ONLY reason the ref gave was "He's in the RZ" then the ref was wrong. "BECAUSE HE IS IN THE RZ" is never the right answer to the question "Why is he called a defensive foul?" It can only be the right answer to "Why is he NOT called for charging?" If Yao had established legal defensive position in the RZ and standing straight up, and O'Neal charged into him, that should be a non-call, not a defensive foul.

And apparently NBA refs do call defensive fouls (not just the Yao incidence last night) SIMPLY because the defender is in the RZ. That is ridiculous, imo. That essentially prohibit you from playing any defense in the RZ except maybe some weakside block. The defender might as well get out of the way, lay down the red carpet and invite opposing players to charge to the basket.

 

and of couse you are YOH, and you sound like that oldparr guy from HOOP