I think the problem is that the rule, as it is worded, is a bad rule. I actually do not believe it is generally implemented the way it is worded because by the time the offensive player is air-bound he has in actuality started his shot long before that moment. In truth, it is when the player has picked up his dribble that he has actually started his shot. Referees usually draw the line somewhere between when the player first picks up his dribble and when he is air-bound. It usually is not called when the defensive player sets himself right as the offensive player is about to be air-bound.

In this case, I think there was so much focus on the easier out (for the ref) of whether the defender's feet were inside or outside of the line that they either didn't or couldn't revisit the issue of whether he had really established positioning in time in the first place.

That's my view of that. I'm obviously biased on this, but I thought it was a bad call.

drizzlybear said:

---

I think the problem is that the rule, as it is worded, is a bad rule. I actually do not believe it is generally implemented the way it is worded because by the time the offensive player is air-bound he has in actuality started his shot long before that moment. In truth, it is when the player has picked up his dribble that he has actually started his shot. Referees usually draw the line somewhere between when the player first picks up his dribble and when he is air-bound. It usually is not called when the defensive player sets himself right as the offensive player is about to be air-bound.

In this case, I think there was so much focus on the easier out (for the ref) of whether the defender's feet were inside or outside of the line that they either didn't or couldn't revisit the issue of whether he had really established positioning in time in the first place.

That's my view of that. I'm obviously biased on this, but I thought it was a bad call.

---

good post. agree

HoopDreams said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I think you are referring to that you checked that Bradley jumped after the defenders feet had handed

Let me put it another way. The general usage of block / charge is the defender is set and square with the offensive player. The defender can be moving backwards in the sense that they can be back peddling if they were already square and continue to be square (offensive player can not just run over a retreating defender who going straight back)

But charge/block is the hardest call in basketball and people apply it differently and it seems to morph over years

I thought it was a clear block, but who really knows. The thing that confirms it for me was the three refs who watched it in slow motion many times from multiple angles let the ref do the makeup call the first time Matt touched the ball

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

the charge on bradley was a bad call. the problem is the ref signaled the defender was in the arc, but the defender jumped to the spot so his feet would be outside the arc, but his body was already leaning backwards and he certainly was not in a set defensive position

the proper call should have been a block (which is not a reviewable foul call, but even if it would have been reviewed the call would have stood if it was properly called a block on the court)

---

Not sure where in the rules it says the defender has to have his feet set. He did beat Bradly to the spot before Bradley left his feet.

But you may be right though, because it sure looked like a makeup call shortly after.

---

NCAA rule: Before the offensive player (with the ball) becomes airborne, the defender must have two feet on the floor, be facing the opponent and be stationary to draw a charge. Otherwise, it should be a blocking foul


How can a player be 'stationary' with their feet that much in front of their body leaning backwards?

Bradley was probably already in the air too

terrible call

---

I did look to see his feet were down just before Bradley left his feet. Don't know about his body, but his feet were stationary.

---

it defies logic if that was a charge... but if you don't believe me, you can believe the officiating crew who made a make up call the next time Matt touched the ball

---

I think you need to re-read what I said in this thread.

---

---

ok, I'm not obsessed with this, and don't have any big desire to be right on this. but I much rather talk about basketball then about coaches, so here goes ... you be the judge!

---

Just be clear, I am not arguing it was the right call (in fact it obviously wasn't because the call was the defender was in the circle), and I acknowledged further up in the thread there appeared to be a makeup call. But from the rule you provided it wasn't clearly a blocking foul either:

• NCAA rule: Before the offensive player (with the ball) becomes airborne, the defender must have two feet on the floor, be facing the opponent and be stationary to draw a charge. Otherwise, it should be a blocking foul.

The defender's feet were clearly down and he was facing the opponent before Bradley got airborne. So the question is what is meant by stationary. Obviously, the defender cannot stick out a leg or knee or hip to impede the opponent's path, but here the defender is leaning backward, away from contact, in the direction of the basket. He wasn't standing straight up and rigid, but that isn't what the rule states. Between your photos #2 & #3 (prior to Bradley taking off), there is very little movement by the defender.

Perhaps the reason I see some ambiguity here is that if I was king and could make the rules, I would give the defender as much right to get himself between the ball and the basket as the ball carrier has to his path of travel. The first person to the spot wins. Way too many blocking fouls are called IMO, where the defender is merely guilty of getting his body between his opponent and the basket.

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I think you are referring to that you checked that Bradley jumped after the defenders feet had handed

Let me put it another way. The general usage of block / charge is the defender is set and square with the offensive player. The defender can be moving backwards in the sense that they can be back peddling if they were already square and continue to be square (offensive player can not just run over a retreating defender who going straight back)

But charge/block is the hardest call in basketball and people apply it differently and it seems to morph over years

I thought it was a clear block, but who really knows. The thing that confirms it for me was the three refs who watched it in slow motion many times from multiple angles let the ref do the makeup call the first time Matt touched the ball

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

the charge on bradley was a bad call. the problem is the ref signaled the defender was in the arc, but the defender jumped to the spot so his feet would be outside the arc, but his body was already leaning backwards and he certainly was not in a set defensive position

the proper call should have been a block (which is not a reviewable foul call, but even if it would have been reviewed the call would have stood if it was properly called a block on the court)

---

Not sure where in the rules it says the defender has to have his feet set. He did beat Bradly to the spot before Bradley left his feet.

But you may be right though, because it sure looked like a makeup call shortly after.

---

NCAA rule: Before the offensive player (with the ball) becomes airborne, the defender must have two feet on the floor, be facing the opponent and be stationary to draw a charge. Otherwise, it should be a blocking foul


How can a player be 'stationary' with their feet that much in front of their body leaning backwards?

Bradley was probably already in the air too

terrible call

---

I did look to see his feet were down just before Bradley left his feet. Don't know about his body, but his feet were stationary.

---

it defies logic if that was a charge... but if you don't believe me, you can believe the officiating crew who made a make up call the next time Matt touched the ball

---

I think you need to re-read what I said in this thread.

---

---

ok, I'm not obsessed with this, and don't have any big desire to be right on this. but I much rather talk about basketball then about coaches, so here goes ... you be the judge!

---

Just be clear, I am not arguing it was the right call (in fact it obviously wasn't because the call was the defender was in the circle), and I acknowledged further up in the thread there appeared to be a makeup call. But from the rule you provided it wasn't clearly a blocking foul either:

• NCAA rule: Before the offensive player (with the ball) becomes airborne, the defender must have two feet on the floor, be facing the opponent and be stationary to draw a charge. Otherwise, it should be a blocking foul.

The defender's feet were clearly down and he was facing the opponent before Bradley got airborne. So the question is what is meant by stationary. Obviously, the defender cannot stick out a leg or knee or hip to impede the opponent's path, but here the defender is leaning backward, away from contact, in the direction of the basket. He wasn't standing straight up and rigid, but that isn't what the rule states. Between your photos #2 & #3 (prior to Bradley taking off), there is very little movement by the defender.

Perhaps the reason I see some ambiguity here is that if I was king and could make the rules, I would give the defender as much right to get himself between the ball and the basket as the ball carrier has to his path of travel. The first person to the spot wins. Way too many blocking fouls are called IMO, where the defender is merely guilty of getting his body between his opponent and the basket.

---

I personally think there's too much charge called. First-to-the-spot is unworkable since offensive player typically requires multiple steps to get to the basket. And it's dangerous with too much potential for undercutting a player gathering momentum and about to lift off. In an open space the offensive player would have the advantage of a first-to-the-spot rule, but when attacking the basket the offensive player's path is limited and known, and thus too easy (and too dangerous) for the defender to slide at the last moment into the path of the oncoming offensive player. Besides, as much as I really do appreciate good defense (team and individual), I'd much rather see athletic moves to the basket than fouls.