Quick stuff (Radford game)...
- Thread starter gary-7
- Start date
They have completely taken the charge out the game, but let's see how they call it against dook.
Dang TP, I had not read this reply when I posted mine, I used the TY analogy as well! LOL
That is an excellent point, I had not thought in those terms but yeah, excellent point! Concerning Paxon starting, yeah but Paxon is giving us really heady play, it isn't like he does not deserve his minutes, so far I love his play. I think with this particular and unique UNC team,
Completely agree. I have been bitching that sometimes charging was called when the defender was barely planted before contact was made - but AFTER the offensive player was in the air.
The new rule will fix that problem, but goes TOO FAR.
It's a huge pet peeve of mine that they cram the students into the nosebleeds except for the small student section off of the court. On Monday night the student sections in the nosebleeds were completely packed but there were substantial numbers of open seats in the lower levels. It's reflected in the noise level and atmosphere in the stadium and is all around a bad look for our program.
Those were my first thoughts. That’s fine, but let’s see if it’s for everyone.
I saw the same thing and I am not happy about it. I went to the Exibition game and that crowd was pathetic, but it was Halloween weekend and it was not a real game so I can give a pass.
Monday was the first game of the season, and I would have LOVED to be there if I didn't live 10 hrs away! There was no empty seats at Mackey arena on Monday night for Purdue game why is NORTH CAROLINA even in danger of not filling the lower bowl?!?!
😔
Two big 5* recruits in town this weekend, so empty seats completely negates what would otherwise be an outstanding visit.
FILL THOSE F ING SEATS!!!🤨
I agree with almost ething in that post TP but after this first game I just did not anything that suggest RJ should start at PG over EC but maybe I'm missing something as I saw much more good than bad with EC on point. He just looks like he has the need for speed and was born to run .. you see what I did there. This team has some serious upside !!
Here's the thing... IF they had been calling it correctly, the rule hasn't changed. It has, for as long as I can remember, been about beating the driver to the spot (which is why you can draw a charge while in a defensive slide from a guy still dribbling), and verticality,...
so, if you step in on a driver, you were always supposed to establish position before he launches
I fear (and we've already seen) the overreaction by refs will harm good defense. The zebras FLAT MISSED two against is in this game.
Last edited:
And it’s the writing on the wall across most all sports, offense before defense. Unfortunately of course.
My issue is balance
— if you are taking away the charge call (they are)… you should also take away the offensive player jumping into the defender on a drive and getting the foul call (like when defender is running beside them, and then offensive player jumps their shoulder into defender)
— if you are taking away the charge call (they are)… you should also take away the offensive player jumping into the defender on a drive and getting the foul call (like when defender is running beside them, and then offensive player jumps their shoulder into defender)
Fair enough, when we art talking about a charge on a drive. But the scenario I'm most concerned about is the charge called after the offensive player has left his feet. He's a ballistic projectile at that point and, even twisting his body, probably can't avoid a collision if a defender moves in front of him.
Years ago, everybody seemed clear that the defender's position had to be established before the offensive guy left his feet. Maybe some straightening up allowed. but feet definitely planted. No defensive slide if the guy is airborne.
Then in recent years, we started calling a charge on the offensive player if the defender was set at the time of contact - not by the time the offensive player left his feet.
I doubt the rule was written that way but it sure was called that way a lot. And idiot broadcasters would replay the film for us, pointing out that the defender was set - without the slightest reference to when the offensive player left the ground.
The "new" rule strikes me as an over-correction. Now, if the announcers are correct about the wording of the rule, it's not when the offensive player leaves his feet, but when he plants the foot he will elevate from.
Maybe the rules folks decided that this over-correction was needed to make sure that players who are up in the air won't be undercut. I mean it should have that effect. But it will also flip some calls that do deserve to be called charges.
And then there's also the perennial problem of different refs calling things different ways. Which is human nature, of course, but also opens the door to bias.
Good breakdown. I am not opposed to the rule being called to the letter of the law, as I think there has been WAY TOO MANY charge calls made the last decade or more.
I do think calling the plant foot is a difficult visual for a referee to see the foot and defensive player at once.
College basketball (and the NBA) would be better without the secondary defender offensive foul. Let athletes show their athleticism. It's also too difficult of a call for officials to get right at a high enough percentage, so missed calls affect the game negatively.
That or allow 5 fouls before disqualification.
That or allow 5 fouls before disqualification.
Well, there it is. It's an overreaction to poor officiating, TBH. It has always SUPPOSED to be at the end of the drive, but too many guys (dookies) got away with sliding under drivers.
Whatever the rules are simply call them correctly, consistently, and equitably! If it is a charge when IUPUI plays N. Iowa then it is a charge at HIS with ratty yelling in your face! They should give challenge flags to coaches and allow video for all judgement calls! And they need to fine or suspend refs that consistently miss obvious calls either through noncalls or egregiously incorrect ones!
I will go with allowing 5 fouls before being DQed, will be hard to get used to but I will try...
We all have coach K to think for this whole block/charge mess with his teaching his players to drop like they were shot with a bazooka as soon as anyone gets within 3ft of them. The there was his variant of teaching his guards to jump in to their defenders and act like they are the one that got fouled.
It does not matter what the letter of the rule says, what matters is how the refs call it. In our game vs St Augs, I watched at least 2 clear shoves to the head from Auggi players go uncalled, watched multiple clear push offs against our defenders again clear but uncalled? Watched Seth have solid position for what should have been a clear charge and Seth gets tagged with the blocking call?
It is about consistency of calls, call it the same way for both teams no matter the situation, call it the same way from 1 half to the next. To me it looks like the refs have money on the spread of some of these games and it is not like that has never happened in college sports.
Part of the reason why I would go to 5 fouls if you wanted to keep charges legal was that charges are difficult to officiate. One missed call either way can have a huge impact on the game, especially if it gets the player into foul trouble. So that's a reason I would go to 5 fouls.
But I would eliminate secondary defender charges in basketball. I don't think it's a basketball play. And I want to see athletes be allowed to be athletes around the rim.
Also, I don't think more video reviews are good for sports like basketball. Baseball is different. A foul ball, or safe/out has definitive landmarks which should make reviews pretty quick and non-controversial. There aren't those definitive landmarks in sports like basketball. There's always some kind of interpretation that can vary human to human.
And this is coming from someone who thinks that getting the call right should be the most important thing. However, it does negatively affect the viewing experience. And there are too many college basketball games to have a central replay like the NFL.
Again to me the easiest way to solve the charge problem in college hoops is to eliminate it. I think the game would be much better without some 6'0" guard, who can't contest at the rim, who just steps in front of a dude who's about to punish the rim.
As the game has evolved, I think going to 6 fouls is needed, it's hard to believe the powers that be haven't at least discussed it. At the very least, players who foul out should be given a 6th foul if the game goes to OT.
I wasn't confused, I know how to count to 5...LOL
I like the 5 fouls, it adds an element of drama to the game. I want them to be legit fouls called equally for both teams, I see far to many unequal calls and that should be addressed. I do not like the fact that each season refs have an "emphasis" on certain rules. What that tells me is that they had not called certain things correctly in the past or they over react to certain things considered to be points of emphasis. There has to be consistency so that players and coaching staffs know how to properly prepare their teams to play. This is not solved by increasing the number of fouls a ref calls on a kid, it is solved by making sure the fouls called on a kid are consistent with how the game is supposed to be played via the rule book. Let my team play by the same rules the other teams gets to play by and I am perfectly fine with my player being whistled and eliminated from that game after 5 whistles on him.
I as well think there is far to much "discussion" between coaches and refs during games, this "working the refs" deal. Coaches should stay in their coaches box and stop allowing the coach to scream in their face. I would give them 1 warning to cut it out, second time a T on the coach, and 3rd time boot him. You do not stand there and let a coach go off on a ref and nothing done about it, stay in your box and talk to your players not the refs. I would like to see league officials at each game with the responsibility of making sure a ref does not get one sided and if he does has the ability to communicate with the refs during TOs and half time as well as post game evaluations. Coaches should be able to communicate any concerns they have with how the game is called during half time and post game meeting with both coaches and that league official.
Last edited:
1. Three fouls per half. An extra foul for each OT period.
2. Sit out for 1 minute each time you foul. But not in the last 2 minutes of the game or OT .
3. Coaches get to call for a review twice each half, with the challenge restored if the call is overturned. Coaches get an extra review during the last 2 minutes of the game, or any OT.
2. Sit out for 1 minute each time you foul. But not in the last 2 minutes of the game or OT .
3. Coaches get to call for a review twice each half, with the challenge restored if the call is overturned. Coaches get an extra review during the last 2 minutes of the game, or any OT.
I wouldn't mind giving coaches one challenge per half total no matter whether successful or not. Maybe take away a TO if unsuccessful. I do not think we need more fouls; conversely I think refs need to call the game more consistently and players need to learn to move their feet!
I appreciate the stats, but that doesn't make more fouls in the college game a bad idea.
Arguably the more talented pros should be able to play with fewer fouls.
Personally, I don't think players should ever foul out (unless flagrant). That's part of the reason why I like making them sit down for a stretch every time they foul. Sure, you could lose them for a bit, but a couple of dodgy calls won't put your best player out of the game.
Watching the Purdue/Tennesee game is the opposite of that though. Sheesh, multiple guys should of had 7 or 8 fouls. Even with those guys not getting 8 whistles Purdue shot 46 free throws and Tennesee shot 36. Gotta have some deterrent to "hacking" as an option to defend
I think if that were an Elite 8 or Final Four game it would have been called much differently. Tough to watch a FT shooting contest.
