Worst Rule in the NBA???

[Roy H.]

I haven't read a single complaint about a rule on this thread that is legit. . . . The charge call is also good and as far as i have seen, is called about as fairly as possible.

Really?  When is the last time you saw refs ignore contact in the circle that would normally be a charge, instead calling it a "no call / play on"?  That play is almost uniformly called a defensive foul, when in fact it isn't. 

I'm surprised you feel that that call is made correctly the majority of the time.  The refs do a good job of discerning what is / isn't in the circle, but once the play is in the circle, they do a terrible job of enforcing the rules.  (Which is why announcers so often focus on "was the defender in the circle" rather than on "did he have his feet set with position").

[Bahku]

I haven't read a single complaint about a rule on this thread that is legit. . . . The charge call is also good and as far as i have seen, is called about as fairly as possible.

Really?  When is the last time you saw refs ignore contact in the circle that would normally be a charge, instead calling it a "no call / play on"?  That play is almost uniformly called a defensive foul, when in fact it isn't. 

I'm surprised you feel that that call is made correctly the majority of the time.  The refs do a good job of discerning what is / isn't in the circle, but once the play is in the circle, they do a terrible job of enforcing the rules.  (Which is why announcers so often focus on "was the defender in the circle" rather than on "did he have his feet set with position").

Gotta agree with Roy here ... there are a lot of rules that are called incorrectly and perhaps need to change with the advancement of the game, (some that have been changed should be recinded, IMHO), but the "Charge" rule is easily the most grossly misinterpreted/miscalled rule in the game. I honestly can't remember when, if the defender was inside the circle and took a charge, it was a "non-call" ... it is always called a blocking foul if it somehow does not qualify as a "charge", and that is a complete twisting/misinterpretation of the rule.

[dmopower]

I like the 5 second rule and remember well when and why it was implemented. 
 Originaly you could not undercut a player unless you were in position before the offensive player hit the point of no return. In my opinion the circle should only be used to decide a tie situation. I believe we are missing a lot of exciting bball because players are afraid to elevate early and have someone run under them and take a charge, and the league seems to be promoting this with the way they are calling it. MJ would have dunked much less with this rule.

[MBz]

In terms of dumbest rule, I don't like the charge circle.  The rule itself is fine, but the enforcement is ridiculous.  If an offensive player makes contact with a defensive player in the circle who has his feet set, that's supposed to be a non-call.  Instead, it is almost 100% of the time called a defensive foul.  I think this discourages good defense, and rewards out of control play by the offense near the basket.

Pretty sure you're wrong. Who says it's supposed to be a non-call? You can't have a guy standing under the basket taking charges else this turns into high school.

They changed that rule I believe last year or two years ago.  You can't set yourself under the basket now.  It's an automatic defensive foul if you are.  You need to be set, out from under the basket before the player leaves his feet for it to be an offensive foul.  I'm not sure if this really counts as a rule, but I think the dumbest thing about NBA officiating is the superstar treatment.  Why does LeBron James get certain fouls, but a rookie doesn't?  A foul is a foul.  Why is LeBron James allowed to be more physical on defense then say Avery Bradley?  That's my issue with NBA officiating, I don't have too many issues with the rules.  I think most of them are good, just not officiated correctly.   

[Celtics4ever]

I agree the no charge circle was little more to help those who can only dunk.  Dumbest rule ever IMHO.

[CelticG1]

This shouldn't even be a debate ... the worst rule in all of sports is the fact that in the NBA, if you call timeout in the last 2 minutes of the game, you get the ball at half-court. 

To me, this is equivalent to:

1) If you call a timeout in the last two minutes of an NFL game, you get the ball at the 50 yard line.

2) If you call a timeout in the ninth inning, you get a runner on second base.

Sure, it makes for more excitement.  But, it's a joke.  If you nail a "game-winner" with 1-2 seconds to go, it should take a 1 in 100 miracle to beat you.  Not 1 in 5.

I never really thought about it but yeah this is an absolutely stupid rule. I don't completely agree with the analogies but it is kind of ridiculous when you think of that Knicks Celtics game. Pierce makes a game winning bucket and there is .04 left on the clock. If you make a shot like that with so little time the other team shouldn't be allowed to bring the ball up half the court without taking up any time

[droopdog7]

I haven't read a single complaint about a rule on this thread that is legit. . . . The charge call is also good and as far as i have seen, is called about as fairly as possible.

Really?  When is the last time you saw refs ignore contact in the circle that would normally be a charge, instead calling it a "no call / play on"?  That play is almost uniformly called a defensive foul, when in fact it isn't.  

I'm surprised you feel that that call is made correctly the majority of the time.  The refs do a good job of discerning what is / isn't in the circle, but once the play is in the circle, they do a terrible job of enforcing the rules.  (Which is why announcers so often focus on "was the defender in the circle" rather than on "did he have his feet set with position").

Just to be clear, I am not claiming that refs call blocking/charging calls well in general (as I think you understand).  And yes, I meant that the refs to a good job of determining whether the player is in the circle for the most part.

By my question is, who says that it should be a no call?  From my understanding, if a player is standing in a place he should not be standing (i.e., inside the circle), it should be a foul.  I mean, there certainly are all kinds of contact and letting these things just play on could create dangerous situation.

So bascically, if you can't get in position outside the circle to take a block, then move out of the way or you will get a foul.

And just in case it isn't clear, I believe the rule changes when a player starts his move close to the rim.  There, the circle doesn't matter.

[wdleehi]

I haven't read a single complaint about a rule on this thread that is legit. . . . The charge call is also good and as far as i have seen, is called about as fairly as possible.

Really?  When is the last time you saw refs ignore contact in the circle that would normally be a charge, instead calling it a "no call / play on"?  That play is almost uniformly called a defensive foul, when in fact it isn't. 

I'm surprised you feel that that call is made correctly the majority of the time.  The refs do a good job of discerning what is / isn't in the circle, but once the play is in the circle, they do a terrible job of enforcing the rules.  (Which is why announcers so often focus on "was the defender in the circle" rather than on "did he have his feet set with position").

Just to be clear, I am not claiming that refs call blocking/charging calls well in general (as I think you understand).  And yes, I meant that the refs to a good job of determining whether the player is in the circle for the most part.

By my question is, who says that it should be a no call?  From my understanding, if a player is standing in a place he should be standing in (i.e., inside the circle), it should be a foul.  I mean, there certainly are all kinds of contact and letting these things just play on could create dangerous situation.

So bascically, if you can't get in position outside the circle to take a block, then move out of the way or you will get a foul.

And just in case it isn't clear, I believe the rule changes when a player starts his move close to the rim.  There, the circle doesn't matter.

NBA players are allowed to be in the Circle on defense.  If they weren't, the NBA would be saying teams are not allowed to defend the basket.


I think it is a stupid rule.  A charge should be a charge, whether or not you have a heel in the line.  Reward good positioning. 

If you draw what would be considered a charge under the basket, it should be a no call (since that is not good defensive positioning)



There are a lot of rules I hate.  The 5 second post up rule.  The defensive 3 seconds.  The circle. 



But you can live with them if they could ever get consistency out of the game calls. 

[droopdog7]

I haven't read a single complaint about a rule on this thread that is legit. . . . The charge call is also good and as far as i have seen, is called about as fairly as possible.

Really?  When is the last time you saw refs ignore contact in the circle that would normally be a charge, instead calling it a "no call / play on"?  That play is almost uniformly called a defensive foul, when in fact it isn't. 

I'm surprised you feel that that call is made correctly the majority of the time.  The refs do a good job of discerning what is / isn't in the circle, but once the play is in the circle, they do a terrible job of enforcing the rules.  (Which is why announcers so often focus on "was the defender in the circle" rather than on "did he have his feet set with position").

Just to be clear, I am not claiming that refs call blocking/charging calls well in general (as I think you understand).  And yes, I meant that the refs to a good job of determining whether the player is in the circle for the most part.

By my question is, who says that it should be a no call?  From my understanding, if a player is standing in a place he should be standing in (i.e., inside the circle), it should be a foul.  I mean, there certainly are all kinds of contact and letting these things just play on could create dangerous situation.

So bascically, if you can't get in position outside the circle to take a block, then move out of the way or you will get a foul.

And just in case it isn't clear, I believe the rule changes when a player starts his move close to the rim.  There, the circle doesn't matter.

NBA players are allowed to be in the Circle on defense.  If they weren't, the NBA would be saying teams are not allowed to defend the basket.


I think it is a stupid rule.  A charge should be a charge, whether or not you have a heel in the line.  Reward good positioning. 

If you draw what would be considered a charge under the basket, it should be a no call (since that is not good defensive positioning)



There are a lot of rules I hate.  The 5 second post up rule.  The defensive 3 seconds.  The circle. 



But you can live with them if they could ever get consistency out of the game calls. 

Do yuo ever watch high school basketball?  There, you'll see guys standing almost directly under the rim taking "charges".  Players already laid the ball in and land on a guy and get a charge.  Now mind you, high refs are horrible beying belief.  But this strategy is pretty dangerous.  And when you see it, it reeks of stupid.  And it is.

Before the circle, refs would not give a guy the block call if he was under the basket but there was no formal rule.  Now at least it can be called consistently.

[wdleehi]

I haven't read a single complaint about a rule on this thread that is legit. . . . The charge call is also good and as far as i have seen, is called about as fairly as possible.

Really?  When is the last time you saw refs ignore contact in the circle that would normally be a charge, instead calling it a "no call / play on"?  That play is almost uniformly called a defensive foul, when in fact it isn't. 

I'm surprised you feel that that call is made correctly the majority of the time.  The refs do a good job of discerning what is / isn't in the circle, but once the play is in the circle, they do a terrible job of enforcing the rules.  (Which is why announcers so often focus on "was the defender in the circle" rather than on "did he have his feet set with position").

Just to be clear, I am not claiming that refs call blocking/charging calls well in general (as I think you understand).  And yes, I meant that the refs to a good job of determining whether the player is in the circle for the most part.

By my question is, who says that it should be a no call?  From my understanding, if a player is standing in a place he should be standing in (i.e., inside the circle), it should be a foul.  I mean, there certainly are all kinds of contact and letting these things just play on could create dangerous situation.

So bascically, if you can't get in position outside the circle to take a block, then move out of the way or you will get a foul.

And just in case it isn't clear, I believe the rule changes when a player starts his move close to the rim.  There, the circle doesn't matter.

NBA players are allowed to be in the Circle on defense.  If they weren't, the NBA would be saying teams are not allowed to defend the basket.


I think it is a stupid rule.  A charge should be a charge, whether or not you have a heel in the line.  Reward good positioning. 

If you draw what would be considered a charge under the basket, it should be a no call (since that is not good defensive positioning)



There are a lot of rules I hate.  The 5 second post up rule.  The defensive 3 seconds.  The circle. 



But you can live with them if they could ever get consistency out of the game calls. 

Do yuo ever watch high school basketball?  There, you'll see guys standing almost directly under the rim taking "charges".  Players already laid the ball in and land on a guy and get a charge.  Now mind you, high refs are horrible beying belief.  But this strategy is pretty dangerous.  And when you see it, it reeks of stupid.  And it is.

Before the circle, refs would not give a guy the block call if he was under the basket but there was no formal rule.  Now at least it can be called consistently.

Was this an issue in the NBA before the circle was added?

As far as I remembered, it wasn't.  This was a creation to allow players more dunk opportunities as a way to boost ratings. 

[droopdog7]

I haven't read a single complaint about a rule on this thread that is legit. . . . The charge call is also good and as far as i have seen, is called about as fairly as possible.

Really?  When is the last time you saw refs ignore contact in the circle that would normally be a charge, instead calling it a "no call / play on"?  That play is almost uniformly called a defensive foul, when in fact it isn't. 

I'm surprised you feel that that call is made correctly the majority of the time.  The refs do a good job of discerning what is / isn't in the circle, but once the play is in the circle, they do a terrible job of enforcing the rules.  (Which is why announcers so often focus on "was the defender in the circle" rather than on "did he have his feet set with position").

Just to be clear, I am not claiming that refs call blocking/charging calls well in general (as I think you understand).  And yes, I meant that the refs to a good job of determining whether the player is in the circle for the most part.

By my question is, who says that it should be a no call?  From my understanding, if a player is standing in a place he should be standing in (i.e., inside the circle), it should be a foul.  I mean, there certainly are all kinds of contact and letting these things just play on could create dangerous situation.

So bascically, if you can't get in position outside the circle to take a block, then move out of the way or you will get a foul.

And just in case it isn't clear, I believe the rule changes when a player starts his move close to the rim.  There, the circle doesn't matter.

NBA players are allowed to be in the Circle on defense.  If they weren't, the NBA would be saying teams are not allowed to defend the basket.


I think it is a stupid rule.  A charge should be a charge, whether or not you have a heel in the line.  Reward good positioning. 

If you draw what would be considered a charge under the basket, it should be a no call (since that is not good defensive positioning)



There are a lot of rules I hate.  The 5 second post up rule.  The defensive 3 seconds.  The circle. 



But you can live with them if they could ever get consistency out of the game calls. 

Do yuo ever watch high school basketball?  There, you'll see guys standing almost directly under the rim taking "charges".  Players already laid the ball in and land on a guy and get a charge.  Now mind you, high refs are horrible beying belief.  But this strategy is pretty dangerous.  And when you see it, it reeks of stupid.  And it is.

Before the circle, refs would not give a guy the block call if he was under the basket but there was no formal rule.  Now at least it can be called consistently.

Was this an issue in the NBA before the circle was added?

As far as I remembered, it wasn't.  This was a creation to allow players more dunk opportunities as a way to boost ratings. 

It WAS an issue for the very reasons that I mentioned. One, it is dangerous.  Two, some NBA were already not giving defenders the benefit of the doubt when they were too close to the rim.  But since there was not formal rule, it was not called consistently.  Now at least, it can be.

[droopdog7]

Incidentally, here is the language on the restricted area.  So it is pretty clear that the rule established two things.  One, you can't draw an offensive foul on a player when you are standing in the circle (so long as the offensive player doesn't receive the ball in the lower box).  Two, the refs certainly can call a foul on the defense if there is more than incidental contact (as there often is).  Nowhere does it say that it SHOULD be a no call.  

An offensive foul should never be called if the contact is with a secondary defensive player who has established a defensive position within a designated “restricted area” near the basket for the purpose of drawing an offensive foul.

The “restricted area” for this purpose is the area bounded by an arc with a 4-foot radius measured from the middle of the basket as stated in nba basketball rules.

EXCEPTION: Any player may be legally positioned within the “restricted area” if the offensive player receives the ball within the Lower Defensive Box.

The mere fact that contact occurs on these type of plays, or any other similar play, does not necessarily mean that a personal foul has been committed. The officials must decide whether the contact is negligible and/or incidental, judging each situation separately.

[Fafnir]

Incidentally, here is the language on the restricted area.  So it is pretty clear that the rule established two things.  One, you can't draw an offensive foul on a player when you are standing in the circle (so long as the offensive player doesn't receive the ball in the lower box).  Two, the refs certainly can call a foul on the defense if there is more than incidental contact (as there often is).  Nowhere does it say that it SHOULD be a no call.  

An offensive foul should never be called if the contact is with a secondary defensive player who has established a defensive position within a designated “restricted area” near the basket for the purpose of drawing an offensive foul.

The “restricted area” for this purpose is the area bounded by an arc with a 4-foot radius measured from the middle of the basket as stated in nba basketball rules.

EXCEPTION: Any player may be legally positioned within the “restricted area” if the offensive player receives the ball within the Lower Defensive Box.

The mere fact that contact occurs on these type of plays, or any other similar play, does not necessarily mean that a personal foul has been committed. The officials must decide whether the contact is negligible and/or incidental, judging each situation separately.

You're reading the rule as if the burden is on it declaring that there should be a no call in certain situations.

Rather the rule states that it cannot be a charge call in the restricted circle. Currently the refs make it an automatic foul on the defender, which isn't stated anywhere in the rule. Instead it just says there can't be a charge and that not all contact is a foul.

[Finkelskyhook]

Traveling. They should just get rid of it.

For Nash, Wade, Pierce, Shaq, Rose, and the messiah, they pretty much have.

[wdleehi]

I haven't read a single complaint about a rule on this thread that is legit. . . . The charge call is also good and as far as i have seen, is called about as fairly as possible.

Really?  When is the last time you saw refs ignore contact in the circle that would normally be a charge, instead calling it a "no call / play on"?  That play is almost uniformly called a defensive foul, when in fact it isn't. 

I'm surprised you feel that that call is made correctly the majority of the time.  The refs do a good job of discerning what is / isn't in the circle, but once the play is in the circle, they do a terrible job of enforcing the rules.  (Which is why announcers so often focus on "was the defender in the circle" rather than on "did he have his feet set with position").

Just to be clear, I am not claiming that refs call blocking/charging calls well in general (as I think you understand).  And yes, I meant that the refs to a good job of determining whether the player is in the circle for the most part.

By my question is, who says that it should be a no call?  From my understanding, if a player is standing in a place he should be standing in (i.e., inside the circle), it should be a foul.  I mean, there certainly are all kinds of contact and letting these things just play on could create dangerous situation.

So bascically, if you can't get in position outside the circle to take a block, then move out of the way or you will get a foul.

And just in case it isn't clear, I believe the rule changes when a player starts his move close to the rim.  There, the circle doesn't matter.

NBA players are allowed to be in the Circle on defense.  If they weren't, the NBA would be saying teams are not allowed to defend the basket.


I think it is a stupid rule.  A charge should be a charge, whether or not you have a heel in the line.  Reward good positioning. 

If you draw what would be considered a charge under the basket, it should be a no call (since that is not good defensive positioning)



There are a lot of rules I hate.  The 5 second post up rule.  The defensive 3 seconds.  The circle. 



But you can live with them if they could ever get consistency out of the game calls. 

Do yuo ever watch high school basketball?  There, you'll see guys standing almost directly under the rim taking "charges".  Players already laid the ball in and land on a guy and get a charge.  Now mind you, high refs are horrible beying belief.  But this strategy is pretty dangerous.  And when you see it, it reeks of stupid.  And it is.

Before the circle, refs would not give a guy the block call if he was under the basket but there was no formal rule.  Now at least it can be called consistently.

Was this an issue in the NBA before the circle was added?

As far as I remembered, it wasn't.  This was a creation to allow players more dunk opportunities as a way to boost ratings. 

It WAS an issue for the very reasons that I mentioned. One, it is dangerous.  Two, some NBA were already not giving defenders the benefit of the doubt when they were too close to the rim.  But since there was not formal rule, it was not called consistently.  Now at least, it can be.

When was this an issue in the NBA?  Your example is a high school game.