From my perch: After working 5 games so far, I've called more fouls on post-play defense this season that ever before. For one reason, the POE's regarding post-play have changed my perspective. Defenders just can't seem to keep two hands on the hips and back of post players who are executing post up and spin moves. Teams are into the bonus FT's earlier in the game than I've seen before due to this.

I watched a NCAA game other night, those refs were calling lots of freedom of movement 'holds' in the post area--lotsa whistles--which is what we all want in the end.

Actually, I think that in the end what we REALLY want is the post players to get their hands off.

Not exactly true. I would imagine many of the fouls Kref saw called in the NCAA game were actually holds. In contrast to NFHS, NCAA-M can have an arm bar pressed into the back of the post player and keep it there even when the post player gets the ball, as long as they are not using that arm bar to dislodge the opponent. Basically, if they are providing resistance rather than causing movement, then they can keep their arm bar. In NFHS, as soon as the post player receives the ball, the defender has to remove the arm bar.

*Tru dat W & S: But until the B4's and B5's start playing proper post defense, then we do want all those whistles--keep poppin dat whistle baby!

Precisely my point again. You and others were not getting it. They tried to tell us that and since it obviously wan't working for you, they changed the wording to get people to get it. And you're still not realizing you were not getting it.

I get what you are saying, I just do not agree with you. It is OK to disagree. Never heard anyone suggest that 10-6-12 was the interpretation or ever saw that in practice before the rule was put into place.

Peace

And THAT was the problem.

Officials To Blame ...
 

Agree with Camron Rust. That's how the change, or lack of, was explained to us.

It might have been a problem, but who created the problem? If you want people to apply a rule that you are only assuming that others understand, you have a problem. But to suggest that was the rule is also not accurate. Also there was no such interpretation that made those things specifically a foul.

Now before the NF put the rules in place, the IHSA adopted the "NCAA Guidelines" that ended up being NF Rules a year after (or two years after) to direct how they wanted these plays to be called. And the IHSA referenced RSBQ as well as a way to determine other types of contact. And if I recall people like yourself told people not to use RSBQ and now in all interpretations RSBQ was used as a way to figure out many fouls with the players on the floor and certainly the ball handler.

Peace

The rule which says an opponent SHALL not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless such contact is with opponents hand while it on ball etc…has been in the books forever. That covers hand checking very clearly.

In the 60s, 70s and early 80s the game was played without hands and it was called if one or both were used. Late eighties and nineties hands being used more and more. Somebody decided to start applying advantage/disadvantage to it. Wrongly imo. We had individual referees trying to determine what was an advantage and what wasn't. Not good. They tried using POEs to stop hand checking but people still weren't calling it because they were thinking advantage/rsbq….Finally, it was realized that they needed to spell it out very, very, very clearly. We have the automatics. They are saying, don't think, just call it. The rule has always been there to cover hand checking.

I know what you are saying. In the early 90s the college camp clinicians were saying don't call it if player going east and west…only north or south. I didn't like it then or at any time. Offenses run east west…Anyway, the game is finally coming back around to what it was. IMO it is much better this way.

I did not say there was not a rule for hand-checking previously to the addition of Article 12.

But two hands on the ball handler was never clearly spelled out in the rules until they added Article. Those all were added how we call the game or got rid of the wiggle room of interpretation. Interpretations are different than hard-fast rules.

POEs are the worst ways to get an interpretation applied when it already does not support a rule.

This was more than what a clinician told you, there was not a specific rule to tell us what should be called. I had called hand-checking or arm bars in the game in the 90s and only was told how that was not a foul. Now when I call those specific fouls and do not have to consider RSBQ, I have a rule that I can clearly reference.

It was more than what a clinician told us to do at a camp, it was hard call something that did not have a clear rule.

Supervisors say all the time and have been saying for a very long time, "I can defend a judgment, I cannot defend not knowing the rules." Well we have rules that stops a lot of that activity and we have support to call it that way. Again, never did I ever call "two hands" on a dribbler a foul automatically like I do now. The rule makes that very clear what to do just like I have rules on verticality when a coach asks for a foul (like he did last night) and why I called a PC foul when a player had LGP. No interpretation, a rule.

Peace

Compared to two years ago, the difference is night and day. We have coaches complaining more that it doesn't get called enough, and a lot of coaches railing on the players to keep their hands off. Makes our job a little easier...

That is why the "rule" helped. Actually the first year this rule was put in place I had many coaches saying, "You cannot do that anymore" to their players. As you said, we get more crap when we do not call a foul than when we actually call a foul. Even when coaches are upset, they often direct their attitude towards the players.

Peace

During the first year, I overheard a lot of coaches saying, "Do it until you get called, then stop. If they don't call it, don't stop." Bugs me when the coach essentially tells his players to cheat unless they get caught.

It's exactly how I would coach as well -- I just wouldn't say it within earshot of the officials.