.
Years ago

no charge arc clarification

if you are between the end line and where the no charge arc line has stopped. (i.e. under the basket but behind the back board) is that still a no charge area ?

saw a player dribble really hard along base line for the corner kick and absolutely poleaxed a stationary defender in correct stance with no call. That is not the intent of the no charge rule. (no intent of a shot / basket drive)

-------------------------

and by the way for those forum referees - Is it a no call if in the no charge area or automatically a block ?

Topic #36333 | Report this topic

Titfortat
Years ago

This area is not part of the no charge area, and should be called within the charge/block guidelines.
In terms of it not being the intent of the rule, there are several things to be considered. The offensive player must be airborne, and then they must make an attempt to dish off or be in the act of shooting.
So in this situation, if he was airborne while making the dish off then had that area been part of the no charge zone a no call would have been correct, however with it being outside the zone a charge should have been the call.
There was a situation this season where Gibson drove baseline and jumped out from under the hoop to attempt a shot and was called for the charge, this is the reason why.

Reply #511873 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

How can they be a poleaxing occur and no foul called either way? Were NBL refs involved?

Reply #511875 | Report this post

Dazz
Years ago

To answer your first question, NO it does not extend to the baseline.

I'm not 100% clear on the exact application of the rule in the NBL. (I assume we are following FIBA rules?) I know that in the NBA there are exceptions, to do with Primary & Secondary defenders, WHERE the drive starts, and the actions of the offensive player.
I have certainly seen NBL refs pay charging fouls where the defender was clearly inside the arc.

My UNDERSTANDING (which may be wrong) of the rule is that it prevents the defending player drawing an offensive foul, but does not automatically constitute a blocking foul.

Reply #511880 | Report this post

Mick
Years ago

The no charge circle is purely for decoration in Australia.

Reply #511885 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

Some points to consider:

1. Offensive player must be airborne
2. Any contact does not constitute an automatic block, it is a "no charge" semi circle
3. Does not extend to the baseline
4. Offensive player cannot use arms or legs illegally

For the OP there were a number of factors, but simply if the player who passed the ball was dribbling and essentially grounded when passing and making contact a charge should have been called, regardless of where the defensive player was standing (including inside the "no charge" semi circle).

Had the player been airborne and the defender inside the semi circle a no call would have been correct.

Reply #511913 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

The NCZ does not apply to a player coming from behind the backboard. The rule states the airbourne player must cross the arc. Hence the back of the arc has been left open. Any contact made by an airbourne player or a grounded player from behind the backboard is covered by normal contact situations.

Reply #511917 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

There should be a 'No Flop' rule!

Reply #511922 | Report this post

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

Close ads

Little Streaks - The fun and interactive good-habits app designed especially for kids.

Serio: Tourism photography and videography

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

Hoops

no charge arc clarification

Recent Posts