NCAA bans on-court stickers for neutral site games, reinforces block/charge rule

According to this piece by the Sporting News, the NCAA rules oversight committee has banned the use of temporary stickers and decals as logos on the court for neutral site games, requiring that all court signage be painted on the floor.

The NCAA also asked for a “recommitment from officials” to understand the block/charge call, suggesting that they adhere to the following interpretation of the rule:

“Before the offensive player (with the ball) becomes airborne, the defender must have two feet on the floor, be facing the opponent and be stationary to draw a charge,” the committee wrote. “Otherwise, it should be a blocking foul.

“Secondary defenders moving forward or to the side are also in violation and those should be blocking fouls.”


  1. College officials are out of control in giving out charge calls. I doubt this changes anything, but I sure hope it does.

  2. So if the offensive player NEVER leaves his feet (Before the offensive player (with the ball) becomes airborne), he can never be guilty of a charge? Who are these idiots?

  3. BeatPurdue,
    You read that wrong. The point is that, as a defender, you can’t get into position after the offensive player has left his feet and expect the charge to be called. Then it will be a block. If the offensive player never leaves his feet and you get into position as he’s running with the ball, that will be a charge. It’s a block if the player jumps, then you get in his way. It doesn’t matter if your feet or set or not, it’s a block.

  4. Im glad for the rule clarification, and I hope it makes the game better. I think this rule is designed more toward secondary defenders sliding in to help, trying to take the charge. Basically it seems the defense was using this tactic to bail out, thus getting unjustly rewarded.

    The thing I hope doesnt change is with the primary defender. If he’s already established good defensive position (hips and shoulders square to the ball), and the offensive player initiates too much contact with this shot, then the defender should be rewarded for establishing position first. Even if his feet are moving. The offensive player is allowed to move his feet, so the primary defender should be allowed to move his feet as well. The emphasis in this scenario shouldnt be what his feet are doing, it should be did he already have good defensive position established.

    They need to differentiate the ruling based on the primary or secondary defender.

  5. Dustin, I understand what they are trying to say. I just quoted your quotation of the “new” interpretation. The words they have put together, in my opinion, don’t accurately convey the meaning. The old rule was that the defensive player had to have established “good defensive position” (vague and open to interpretation by the official) and not “slide” under the offensive player. That is as clear as it is going to get without absurd possibilities. I know that this is a far fetched example, but assume that you are down 1 with the ball, there are 5 seconds left, with the double bonus, and a great shot blocker is in front of you; instead of going towards the basket (where he will block your shot) you jump at a 90 degree angle sidewise, as a secondary defender is running towards the ball from 5 feet away (you literally jump into the guy); the secondary defender is not set, he is moving, when you hit you are in the air; ipso facto, the foul is now on the defender even though he did nothing wrong, and the offense gets 2 free throws to win the game. Not a good rule.

  6. We can play the “what if” game until we’re blue in the face. Look, let’s be honest and keep this as simple as possible. The rule in itself is good. However, when you have 10 guys moving on the court at once, not all basketball plays will fit into a nice definition. Plays will still be open to interpretation, and Im fine with that.

    Im still a believer in that games arent determined by just a few calls that dont go your way. I guess what Im saying is that lets not to get caught in the semantics and minutea of this rule clarification.

Comments are closed.