Hoopie
Years ago

Rules question re direction of motion

There used to be a rule that if a defender had established a clear direction of motion and the attacker changed direction to cause contact, then it was a foul by the attacker.

I've seen cases recently where I cannot agree with the calls if that rule still applies
- Wesley jumps to block the shot but avoid contact with Ellis in the first quarter, and Ellis steps under him to draw the contact and gets shots. (I thought this was what was known as tunnelling, which was penalised heavily years ago)
-attacking dribblers pushing away their defenders will usually get the call in their favour
-screeners sticking out their backsides as a defender goes past seem to get the call in their favour if there's contact. (Unless the defender hits the deck, in which case there's often a sympathy call in favour of the defender)
-the attacker changes direction and clips the defender's trailing hip or leg

Does it all come down 'hit on the chest = charge, otherwise it's a blockIng foul no matter what'?

Topic #40239 | Report this topic


Duke Fan  
Years ago

It all comes down to whether it's "heads or tails" in the ref's mental coin toss

Reply #606571 | Report this post


AngusH  
Years ago

It's easy - the foul gets called against the guy who doesn't tumble to the ground dramatically.

Reply #606581 | Report this post


Melbourne Boy  
Years ago

Depends on who's home game it is

Reply #606584 | Report this post


Dazz  
Years ago

There used to be a rule that if a defender had established a clear direction of motion and the attacker changed direction to cause contact, then it was a foul by the attacker.
I don't know about that. Drawing the foul by deliberately angling into the defender is as old as the hills.
Basically you need to look at the rule for a charge, and if applicable the "arc". If its not a charge, and the refer deems the contact worthy of his attention, then it will be a blocking foul.

And yes, its also depends on the relative sizes and theatrics, but typically that will go more towards "call v non-call" rather than change the foul.

And yes, refs do get it wrong.

The ones that annoy me are when 2 refs with a decent view hold their whistles, and the 3rd guy who obviously couldn't see the contact, calls the foul based on the flopping and supposition.

Reply #606593 | Report this post


Duke Fan  
Years ago

"The ones that annoy me are when 2 refs with a decent view hold their whistles, and the 3rd guy who obviously couldn't see the contact, calls the foul based on the flopping and supposition."

Yeah but Vaughan Mayberry has mystical powers

Reply #606595 | Report this post


Very Old  
Years ago

"There used to be a rule that if a defender had established a clear direction of motion and the attacker changed direction to cause contact, then it was a foul by the attacker."

This was always a bit of a furphy, like the one which went " if the ball does not get passed to the player in the key , its not a three seconds " - that one came from a misunderstanding of the interpretation where ' if the player is clealy attempting to exit the keyway, or is being prevented from exiting the keyway while they are in the act of exiting it - don't call the violation - give them an oportunity to exit."


the interpretation that may have give rise to your furphy are

- if the defensive player has been totally committed to a path that is currently not intersecting with the path of the offensive player - and the offensive player deliberately changes direction in order to contact that defensive player, and there is contact that is unavoidable by the defense ( ie the defensive player does not grab or slap the offense with their arms, hands or feet) it is not a foul by the defense.


Eddie crouch used to drive Phil Smyth absolutely crazy with this one, as phil had a tendancy to deliberately go into reverse and go backwards into a defense that was following him closely on the dribble, or would jump backwards into the defense that was jumping vertically behind him going for the block. Eddie would mostly ignore it and call nothing or would occasionally call a charge on smyth instead.

The crux of the matter is that if the defence has no way of avoiding the offence because the offensive has chosen to move into the defence's path after the defence has left the ground, then it cant be a foul. its either playon or a foul on the offence.

remember for a foul to be a foul it has to have

1) physical contact
2) be illegal contact under the rules
3) create a disadvantage or an illegal advantage

I hope that helps

Reply #606618 | Report this post


Very Old  
Years ago

the exception these days is inside the "charge" semi-circle - you can't call a charge if the defence's last foot plant was inside that semi-circle. - but the ref can decide to not call a block if they are certain the contact was caused entirely by the offence..

Reply #606620 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Its a no charge zone not a no block zone. The defender still has to be in a legal guarding position within the NCZ or its a blocking foul. In addition the NCZ only comes into play if the offensive player is airbourne and is in the act of shooting or passing. If the offensive player is grounded normal contact rules apply

Reply #606633 | Report this post


Very Old  
Years ago

"Its a no charge zone not a no block zone."

Yep - that's what I wrote ;)

Reply #606806 | Report this post




You need to be a registered user to post from this location. Register here.



Close ads
Beam Orders - a quick, simple order and payments site for your business.
Dunk.com.au - Custom basketball uniforms
Punch - insightful time tracking

Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.

Recent Posts



.


An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 12:21 am, Fri 10 Dec 2021 | Posts: 906,368 | Last 7 days: 667