The Trevor Ariza dunk

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

I dunno about your retarded European rules, but it is widely known and accepted in the NBA that you can't slide under a dunker to draw a charge. Bottom line.

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

You're missing the whole point of the crowding a path to begin with. If Ariza was on his drive to the basket before Hill established position, it is not an offensive foul. As you can see, Grant Hill's back is facing the camera in the beginning of the clip, which means that Ariza established his drive to the basket first=defensive foul. You could never be a ref in America.

[Maestro Minded]

You're missing the whole point of the crowding a path to begin with. If Ariza was on his drive to the basket before Hill established position, it is not an offensive foul. As you can see, Grant Hill's back is facing the camera in the beginning of the clip, which means that Ariza established his drive to the basket first=defensive foul. You could never be a ref in America.

ariza is not even in the 3 sec box when grant hill is in position just outside the restriction area, with both his legs standing firmly on the ground, 6-7 feet away from ariza. OFF COURSE he has every right to be there. as you can see in that picture he's crossing his arms on his chest to show the ref that he's on position (which he shouldnt need to do).

grant hills back facing the camera isn't that strange since ariza is cutting in from the right side of the court (check the pic)

do you really not see how there's a possibility for this case being a charge?
if you don't ... OK.. lets just drop it.

[Antonio_]

.....

I have to ask my daddy about the thing you quoted. I don't speak english so well so i'll simply ask him the rule. I was 100% sure you couldn't be in movement in order to take a charge. Like i said, if you move towards the dribbler they call it a defensive foul 99% of the times. If you move lateral (or backwards, even if it's unlikely) to take position and your feet are both on the floor and freeze before the impact (you ain't moving) then it's a charge. But since you're doing all this work i'll ask my father, man. He knows the deal.

That's a good discussion, anyway. +1 to both of you.

[Maestro Minded]

i believe thats the way it should be, and in sweden, thats the way it is. maybe they follow that strictly in NBA/FIBA, but atleast according to the rules and regelations, that's the way it's supposed to be. you know like in football, some rules aren't followed strictly either (attempting to trip an opponent inside the penalty box often doesnt result in a penalty even though it should according to UEFA rules) ask your father, im looking forward to a response, like you said, this is a good discussion.

btw juventus third spot this season is impressive i must say.

[GangstaBoogy]

Grant Hill never stopped moving his feet...therefore its a blocking foul.

This dunk reminds me a lot of Kobe's dunk on Nash.

a defender can move his feets and still be in position as long as he's moving backwards or sideways.

Mmmm.. no. He can't move his feets, man. That's the rule #1, forgot that?

Yeah man your feet have to be planted before the person with the ball makes his move. Check the clips, Hill kept shuffling his feet to get into position (and probably to force him to take off further in hopes of disrupting the dunk).

[Antonio_]

i believe thats the way it should be, and in sweden, thats the way it is. maybe they follow that strictly in NBA/FIBA, but atleast according to the rules and regelations, that's the way it's supposed to be. you know like in football, some rules aren't followed strictly either (attempting to trip an opponent inside the penalty box often doesnt result in a penalty even though it should according to UEFA rules) ask your father, im looking forward to a response, like you said, this is a good discussion.

btw juventus third spot this season is impressive i must say.

If you are a ref you know you don't read books when you are on the court, lol. You simply analyze the movement of the defender when you take your decision. If he moves towards the player with the ball to take the contact you usually call it a defensive foul. If he's in his initial guarding position and he just moves lateral or backwards to mantain it and prevent the dribbler from doing an uncontested dunk/lay-up, you call it a charge, cause the defender was ALREADY in a legal guarding position and he simply moved to adjust his position. But his feet must be planted on the floor and he shouldn't be in movement when there's the contact.

In this case (sorry but i can't see videos at the moment), if i remember well, Hill was not in an initial guarding position. He lost his man. To be in the legal guarding position you should have both feet on the floor and you have to be IN FRONT of the player with the ball. Hill is not in that position, since he's moving lateral without facing Ariza. In my opinion that's a defensive foul. Because he didn't have an initial guarding position. But i understand some could call it a charge cause in the moment of the impact Hill was in a perfect position with both the feets on the floor and in front of Ariza. It's a defensive foul to me, anyway. But it's extremely hard to make that call for the ref.

About the Kobe vs Nash thing, it's easier to see it's a defensive foul, imho. Just look at Nash. He moves towards Kobe just to prevent him from dunking. Defensive foul. Easy.

Just my opinion.

I'll ask my father about the rule.

P.S.
Watch out for Juventus: i'm pretty sure we will finish 2nd this season, and we'll contend for the title (and the Champions League) in the 2008/09 season.

[Maestro Minded]

i believe thats the way it should be, and in sweden, thats the way it is. maybe they follow that strictly in NBA/FIBA, but atleast according to the rules and regelations, that's the way it's supposed to be. you know like in football, some rules aren't followed strictly either (attempting to trip an opponent inside the penalty box often doesnt result in a penalty even though it should according to UEFA rules) ask your father, im looking forward to a response, like you said, this is a good discussion.

btw juventus third spot this season is impressive i must say.

If you are a ref you know you don't read books when you are on the court, lol. You simply analyze the movement of the defender when you take your decision. If he moves towards the player with the ball to take the contact you usually call it a defensive foul. If he's in his initial guarding position and he just moves lateral or backwards to mantain it and prevent the dribbler from doing an uncontested dunk/lay-up, you call it a charge, cause the defender was ALREADY in a legal guarding position and he simply moved to adjust his position. But his feet must be planted on the floor and he shouldn't be in movement when there's the contact.


In this case (sorry but i can't see videos at the moment), if i remember well, Hill was not in an initial guarding position. He lost his man. To be in the legal guarding position you should have both feet on the floor and you have to be IN FRONT of the player with the ball. Hill is not in that position, since he's moving lateral without facing Ariza. In my opinion that's a defensive foul. Because he didn't have an initial guarding position. But i understand some could call it a charge cause in the moment of the impact Hill was in a perfect position with both the feets on the floor and in front of Ariza. It's a defensive foul to me, anyway.

And it's easier to see in Kobe's facial to Nash. Just look at Nash. He moves towards Kobe just to prevent him from dunking. Defensive foul.

Just my opinion.

I'll ask my father about the rule.

P.S.
Watch out for Juventus: i'm pretty sure we will finish 2nd this season, and we'll contend for the title (and the Champions League) in the 2008/09 season.

posting the picture again

you can clearly see that grant hill stands with both his feets on the ground, facing ariza (even though it's not a premise for a charge, as i've already pointed out)

i dont read books on the court, sure, but i use the information i've gathered from the book on the court

during the entire fastbreak, hill was atleast 6 feet ahead of ariza, since he saw that his teammate had his eyes on the pointguard(??)

yea.. i just checked the kobe/nash case, thats a clear personal foul. nash probably realised that he was inside the restriction area and wanted to move out for the charge, but by doing that he fouled.

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

You're missing the whole point of the crowding a path to begin with. If Ariza was on his drive to the basket before Hill established position, it is not an offensive foul. As you can see, Grant Hill's back is facing the camera in the beginning of the clip, which means that Ariza established his drive to the basket first=defensive foul. You could never be a ref in America.

ariza is not even in the 3 sec box when grant hill is in position just outside the restriction area, with both his legs standing firmly on the ground, 6-7 feet away from ariza. OFF COURSE he has every right to be there. as you can see in that picture he's crossing his arms on his chest to show the ref that he's on position (which he shouldnt need to do).

grant hills back facing the camera isn't that strange since ariza is cutting in from the right side of the court (check the pic)

do you really not see how there's a possibility for this case being a charge?
if you don't ... OK.. lets just drop it.

LOL@3 sec box....Yes, Ariza is in the KEY. As you can see, he's picked up his dribble and is making his move to the basket, while Hill is still running to position. Defensive foul. I can see how it looks like an offensive foul, but that's where I draw the line.

[Hatesrats™]

Fuck a rules..
Danm!! Ariza just Gassed Grant Hill.

That shit don't wash off either..
Nasty shit!!

[Sanford - V. President of the Dangerous Crew Movement]

no matter who says what...great fuckin dunk.

[OG Hack Wilson]

where was ariza against the celtix?