Ball-handlers / Freedom of Movement

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I called several hand checks in a scrimmage yesterday. No coach complained to me, and most yelled at their player, "Keep your hands off the ball handler".

I had a three-team scrimmage this past Friday and one team came out particularly aggressive on defense. I had to call 2-3 hand checks or arm bars early-on; at one point, I said "hands off the ball handler" after calling one. To their credit, the players adapted to to the calls.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And you guys are still doing scrimmages into December?

Here, the girls season started this past week. Boys start tomorrow. My first HS level game is Tuesday. Let the fun begin.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

The "rules changes" that have been implemented the last two years really have not changed anything but to encourage officials to turn back the clock at least forty (if not more) years with respect to how the game should be officiated.

For me, I haven't changed how I called fouls for the last forty-five years. It is the responsibility of the officials to call the game per the rules and the players should play the game per the rules.

MTD, Sr.

[OKREF]

Why are people acting like this is new this year? This was a rule and emphasis last year.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Why are people acting like this is new this year? This was a rule and emphasis last year.

It has actually been the "rule" for as long as I can remember. It was just that way too many officials (nearly all, me included) were doing a piss poor job of calling it. No one was going to do it and be the only one doing it. They tried points of emphasis for years and got no movement in what was being called. They really didn't want to go to absolutes but pretty much everyone was ignoring the directives year after year. So, they simply changed the wording to make what should been a foul all along more set in stone without latitude to ignore it under what was really a poorly applied advantage/disadvantage philosoply. There was an advantage, just one that was less blatant than some fouls.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It has actually been the "rule" for as long as I can remember. It was just that way too many officials (nearly all, me included) were doing a piss poor job of calling it. No one was going to do it and be the only one doing it. They tried points of emphasis for years and got no movement in what was being called. They really didn't want to go to absolutes but pretty much everyone was ignoring the directives year after year. So, they simply changed the wording to make what should been a foul all along more set in stone without latitude to ignore it under what was really a poorly applied advantage/disadvantage philosoply. There was an advantage, just one that was less blatant than some fouls.

That's what I said two posts ago.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It has actually been the "rule" for as long as I can remember.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

That's what I said two posts ago.

There's a big difference. Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. can remember, or, rather, should remember, a lot further back in time than most on the Forum. Most Forum members do not remember climbing up a ladder to get the laced ball out of the peach basket.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It has actually been the "rule" for as long as I can remember. It was just that way too many officials (nearly all, me included) were doing a piss poor job of calling it. No one was going to do it and be the only one doing it. They tried points of emphasis for years and got no movement in what was being called. They really didn't want to go to absolutes but pretty much everyone was ignoring the directives year after year. So, they simply changed the wording to make what should been a foul all along more set in stone without latitude to ignore it under what was really a poorly applied advantage/disadvantage philosoply. There was an advantage, just one that was less blatant than some fouls.

I agree. We had a big discussion about this in our association last year. Several guys and coaches for that matter didn't like the new wording and the automatics. My answer was exactly what you just said. It was really our fault as officials because we weren't officiating this type of contact properly.

[Remington]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It has actually been the "rule" for as long as I can remember. It was just that way too many officials (nearly all, me included) were doing a piss poor job of calling it. No one was going to do it and be the only one doing it. They tried points of emphasis for years and got no movement in what was being called. They really didn't want to go to absolutes but pretty much everyone was ignoring the directives year after year. So, they simply changed the wording to make what should been a foul all along more set in stone without latitude to ignore it under what was really a poorly applied advantage/disadvantage philosoply. There was an advantage, just one that was less blatant than some fouls.

I don't think we were piss poor as you say, we were trained(by very high level officials in some cases) to use advantage/disadvantage and then modified further to RSBQ on these calls. I think the game is back to the correct way, but every camp I attended the last 10 years (prior to last season) still wanted you to only enforce RSBQ. Then, the NCAA changed their stance and we were told to call automatics in collegiate conferences and the NFHS subsequently followed. I like the game better now, but there is still some RSBQ to determine whether or not we have a true "hot stove" touch. The NCAA D1 coaches put out a video stating they want these philosophical changes (rules have been there) and acknowledged they need to adjust but really want the officials to call the fouls as it will make the game better in the long run.

[Remington]

Along those lines, I want to share a quick story. I was at a collegiate camp and one of my clinicians told me during my sit period that I had called the most fouls in the crew and that "you don't want to be known as the guy who calls the most fouls on the crew." I remember thinking they seemed like no-brainer calls and they were all in my PCA.......However, I was told that at camp you do what your court clinician tells you and never argue, just say "OK" or "yes sir" or "thank you" so that's what I did. He said the next session I don't even want to know you are out there other than by seeing you out hustle everyone. So I worked on positioning very hard (sprinted on fast breaks to beat plays, brisk jog from C to C, etc... and didn't call a single foul for the next 7 minutes. On several occasions, my partners called into the dual coverage areas and got the fouls that needed to be called. When my session ended, this clinician jumped out of his chair and trotted to me and gave me a world class high five and said how awesome I was. I was rated #1 by this particular clinician because I didn't call anything.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Remington

Along those lines, I want to share a quick story. I was at a collegiate camp and one of my clinicians told me during my sit period that I had called the most fouls in the crew and that "you don't want to be known as the guy who calls the most fouls on the crew." I remember thinking they seemed like no-brainer calls and they were all in my PCA.......However, I was told that at camp you do what your court clinician tells you and never argue, just say "OK" or "yes sir" or "thank you" so that's what I did. He said the next session I don't even want to know you are out there other than by seeing you out hustle everyone. So I worked on positioning very hard (sprinted on fast breaks to beat plays, brisk jog from C to C, etc... and didn't call a single foul for the next 7 minutes. On several occasions, my partners called into the dual coverage areas and got the fouls that needed to be called. When my session ended, this clinician jumped out of his chair and trotted to me and gave me a world class high five and said how awesome I was. I was rated #1 by this particular clinician because I didn't call anything.

There's a moderately successful D1 official who is a clinician at a camp I go to. When he was up and coming an observer took his whistle for a portion of a camp game and just had him run up and down the court...true story.

I've also had the experience where an observer complained about the entire crew calling too many foul. It was a high level AAU game (Julius Randle was playing). The game was physical and we were getting a lot of off the ball, chippy stuff. None the less, the observer was complaining. We just nodded our heads then bitched about it once we got back to the locker room.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Remington

I don't think we were piss poor as you say, we were trained(by very high level officials in some cases) to use advantage/disadvantage and then modified further to RSBQ on these calls. I think the game is back to the correct way, but every camp I attended the last 10 years (prior to last season) still wanted you to only enforce RSBQ. Then, the NCAA changed their stance and we were told to call automatics in collegiate conferences and the NFHS subsequently followed. I like the game better now, but there is still some RSBQ to determine whether or not we have a true "hot stove" touch. The NCAA D1 coaches put out a video stating they want these philosophical changes (rules have been there) and acknowledged they need to adjust but really want the officials to call the fouls as it will make the game better in the long run.

Precisely my point. The rules makers wanted one thing and pretty much everyone, including camp instructors were doing something different than they wanted.....applying RSBQ too liberally and not calling fouls on stuff that was intended. The rules committees were, for years, saying that there was an advantage and it was affecting RSBQ but still it wasn't getting called....that officials on the whole were just not properly recognizing the advantage and he effect on RSBQ.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It has actually been the "rule" for as long as I can remember. It was just that way too many officials (nearly all, me included) were doing a piss poor job of calling it. No one was going to do it and be the only one doing it. They tried points of emphasis for years and got no movement in what was being called. They really didn't want to go to absolutes but pretty much everyone was ignoring the directives year after year. So, they simply changed the wording to make what should been a foul all along more set in stone without latitude to ignore it under what was really a poorly applied advantage/disadvantage philosoply. There was an advantage, just one that was less blatant than some fouls.

There was never a rule on hand-checking except for what was stated the last 2 years or so. There were some guidelines, but not a rule. I have been officiating since the 90s and we used to use other philosophies that may or may not have been a foul that we call now.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There was never a rule on hand-checking except for what was stated the last 2 years or so. There were some guidelines, but not a rule. I have been officiating since the 90s and we used to use other philosophies that may or may not have been a foul that we call now.

Peace

It has always been the rule, they just reworded it to be more explicit. At first it was covered under illegal use of hands. It wasn't getting called properly. So, they split it out to have a separate hand checking foul. Even with that change and several attempts to get people to call what was there, it wasn't getting called. So, the spelled it out even more explicitly for those that were not getting the message.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It has always been the rule, they just reworded it to be more explicit. At first it was covered under illegal use of hands. It wasn't getting called properly. So, they split it out to have a separate hand checking foul. Even with that change and several attempts to get people to call what was there, it wasn't getting called. So, the spelled it out even more explicitly for those that were not getting the message.

I never saw what is listed in 10-6-12 as a rule. They only created that rule after the NCAA put the wording into their rule of 10-1-4. These were not rules when I started and people would not call these unless they saw and advantage. I had actually heard of RSBQ long before these were even mentioned. Did I probably call the game similarly? Sure did, but I never had a specific reference to use in the explanation. I also went to camps where we would get in trouble for calling things that did not fit the philosophy. When these rules came into place, we had support under the rules.

To say those were always rules is not exactly correct.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There was never a rule on hand-checking except for what was stated the last 2 years or so. There were some guidelines, but not a rule. I have been officiating since the 90s and we used to use other philosophies that may or may not have been a foul that we call now.

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.