Controversial end-game call seals Ole Miss loss to Tennessee

[UnknownOrange]

It’s such a left comment to want to categorically ban charges because it makes them uncomfortable. Give me a break.

Please elaborate what the hell this means

 

[Tom K.]

Have fun going against a Buzz Williams team with no charging.

If some of the folks here get their wish, WE will be the Buzz Williams team.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

IMO that is a block. The fact that a charge is rarely black and white is why they need to get rid of it. That’s not defense. Just have a player control foul for wildly going at the rim. That will still be called wrong but at least it cleans up the perimeter charges which are never called right.

Really have to understand the rules before commenting. A charge is a player control foul.

A player control foul, also referred to as a "charge," occurs when the offensive player initiates major contact with the defensiveplayer once the defender has established legal guarding position. As a result of thefoul, the offensive team loses possession and the offending player is charged with a personal foul.

 

[Cusefan95]

I want the charge abolished.
But as it stands, the call was beyond correct.

So you’d be OK with offensive players bulldozing over defensive players? Turning basketball effectively into a game more violent than football/rugby?

Because the end result of eliminating change calls would be an absolute disaster for the sport, where the key to effective offense is battering the crap out of defenders.

 

[UnknownOrange]

So you’d be OK with offensive players bulldozing over defensive players? Turning basketball effectively into a game more violent than football/rugby?

Because the end result of eliminating change calls would be an absolute disaster for the sport, where the key to effective offense is battering the crap out of defenders.

We don't want offensive fouls gone

We want standing there to get run over fouls gone.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Really have to understand the rules before commenting. A charge is a player control foul.

A player control foul, also referred to as a "charge," occurs when the offensive player initiates major contact with the defensiveplayer once the defender has established legal guarding position. As a result of thefoul, the offensive team loses possession and the offending player is charged with a personal foul.

Thanks for missing the point semantics police

 

[HRE Otto IV]

So you’d be OK with offensive players bulldozing over defensive players? Turning basketball effectively into a game more violent than football/rugby?

Because the end result of eliminating change calls would be an absolute disaster for the sport, where the key to effective offense is battering the crap out of defenders.

Charges aren’t often from on the ball defenders. Off the ball defenders would have to actually try to block a shot instead of just standing there. In return I would be open to letting them play at the rim. Limit with body fouls to offset.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

The fact that nobody in this thread can agree what the call should have been just emphasizes how stupid the rule is.

Exactly what I was thinking.
I used to be all for this play, but now I think a secondary defender should ALWAYS be called for a block. Play defense on the guy, or get out of the way.

 

[Brooky03]

If you stand there to just fall over it should be a defensive foul every time. If the defender pushes off organically it's offensive, but everything you are taught says you should move your feet on defense.

You move your feet to get into position, not for the sake of moving your feet. Once you're in position, why would you keep moving?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

You move your feet to get into position, not for the sake of moving your feet. Once you're in position, why would you keep moving?

To stay in front of the offensive player while still playing defense. That's still legal.

 

[Brooky03]

Exactly what I was thinking.
I used to be all for this play, but now I think a secondary defender should ALWAYS be called for a block. Play defense on the guy, or get out of the way.

He is playing defense and there was hardly a primary defender, so I don't think it would be accurate to call him the secondary defender in this play.

All of you guys arguing that the guy taking the charge shouldn't have been rewarded for getting into legal defensive position before the shooter gathered for the shot are putting the defender in an impossible situation. If he can't stand his ground in front of the ballhandler, what can he do? Jump to the side and swipe like a jackass at the ball? It's not like this was a flop; he got trucked by a player who knew he was standing there.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

He is playing defense and there was hardly a primary defender, so I don't think it would be accurate to call him the secondary defender in this play.

All of you guys arguing that the guy taking the charge shouldn't have been rewarded for getting into legal defensive position before the shooter gathered for the shot are putting the defender in an impossible situation. If he can't stand his ground in front of the ballhandler, what can he do? Jump to the side and swipe like a jackass at the ball? It's not like this was a flop; he got trucked by a player who knew he was standing there.

He did not know that. He was focused on the guy in front of him who was actually playing defense. The statute of liberty defense has to go. People are going to get hurt.

 

[Brooky03]

To stay in front of the offensive player while still playing defense. That's still legal.

If you're already in front of the offensive player, why would you move? That would put you out of position...

 

[Brooky03]

He did not know that. He was focused on the guy in front of him who was actually playing defense. The statute of liberty defense has to go. People are going to get hurt.

Then shame on him for not seeing the 6'8" guy directly in front of his face. Basketball is not a sport that allows you to run people over who have been standing in the same spot for like a year and half.

 

[Brooky03]

We don't want offensive fouls gone

We want standing there to get run over fouls gone.

Standing there to get run over? You act like the offensive player has no say in what happens. He could always, ya know, not run into the guy standing in front of him.

 

[Ghost]

I suppose one way of looking at it is, assume that guy didn't have the ball, was that a moving screen? If you don't think so, not a foul.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Then shame on him for not seeing the 6'8" guy directly in front of his face. Basketball is not a sport that allows you to run people over who have been standing in the same spot for like a year and half.

He turned to his left to avoid one guy. Uggh. Nevermind.

 

[Brooky03]

Another way to look at this.

We're asking why the defender gets rewarded for standing between the guy with the ball and the basket. That's controversial, for whatever reason. How about asking why the guy with the ball should be rewarded for initiating substantial contact with a guy just standing there? If you want a no-call in this situation, fine, whatevs. But how is a block justified?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

If you're already in front of the offensive player, why would you move? That would put you out of position...

You asked why would a player continue to move his feet on defense like all of us were taught. I'm not necessarily limiting this to the stupid secondary defense play. I'm talking about actual defense.

By the way, I think every play with a secondary defender should be reviewed right away. If it's shown you as the defender started your fall to the ground before contact, you're immediately disqualified. Play the defense, take the hit, or go sit down.

 

[Jake]

He did not know that. He was focused on the guy in front of him who was actually playing defense. The statute of liberty defense has to go. People are going to get hurt.

“Statue of Liberty defense is going to hurt someone”??? C’mon. The whole function of defense is to keep yourself between the player and the basket.

Back when, you know, they made the rules, someone wisely decided they better come up with some type of ruling when a ball handler and defender make inevitable contact.

So these rule makers decided that if a collision occurred, the defender had to be stationary...otherwise YOU. HAVE. FOOTBALL.

Seems pretty smart to me.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

“Statue of Liberty defense is going to hurt someone”??? C’mon. The whole function of defense is to keep yourself between the player and the basket.

Back when, you know, they made the rules, someone wisely decided they better come up with some type of ruling when a ball handler and defender make inevitable contact.

So these rule makers decided that if a collision occurred, the defender had to be stationary...otherwise YOU. HAVE. FOOTBALL.

Seems pretty smart to me.

Rules change all the time. To keep yourself between the player and the basket you first have to establish your position legally guarding the offensive player. That is not what a secondary defender does.

 

[Brooky03]

You asked why would a player continue to move his feet on defense like all of us were taught. I'm not necessarily limiting this to the stupid secondary defense play. I'm talking about actual defense.

By the way, I think every play with a secondary defender should be reviewed right away. If it's shown you as the defender started your fall to the ground before contact, you're immediately disqualified. Play the defense, take the hit, or go sit down.

Are you talking about 'chopping your feet' type stuff? I'm talking about actually moving. There's no difference between standing there with your feet set and staying in the same spot with your feet bouncing up and down. You're in the same spot, regardless. Neither shows intent to actually play defense more than the other.

In the second paragraph, you're talking about flops. This play was not a flop.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Are you talking about 'chopping your feet' type stuff? I'm talking about actually moving. There's no difference between standing there with your feet set and staying in the same spot with your feet bouncing up and down. You're in the same spot, regardless. Neither shows intent to actually play defense more than the other.

In the second paragraph, you're talking about flops. This play was not a flop.

Most, if not all secondary defenders, are not playing defense. They are establishing a wall for the offensive player to attempt to go around/through after they have successfully beaten the primary defender through an actual basketball play. It's why they keep tweaking the rule and moving the semi-circle away. And why the euro-step, which is often just a third step, has become vogue and the near or actual travel allowed to protect both players.

 

[Jake]

Rules change all the time. To keep yourself between the player and the basket you first have to establish your position legally guarding the offensive player. That is not what a secondary defender does.

So you want to change the rukebok so a primary defender can do one thing, but a secondary defender can’t.

Good luck with that. That’s chaos.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

So you want to change the rukebok so a primary defender can do one thing, but a secondary defender can’t.

Good luck with that. That’s chaos.

It's pretty much what the NBA has done. It's possible.