Ball-handlers / Freedom of Movement

[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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Thanks for making my point.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Thanks for making my point.

Yup.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There was never a rule on hand-checking except for what was stated the last 2 years or so.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Thanks for making my point.

Three years old (2011-12):

10-6 : CONTACT
ART. 1 A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress
of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by
bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.
ART. 2 A player shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless
such contact is only with the opponent’s hand while it is on the ball and is
incidental to an attempt to play the ball.
ART. 3 A player shall not use his/her hands on an opponent in any way that
inhibits the freedom of movement of the opponent or acts as an aid to a player in
starting or stopping.
ART. 4 A player shall not extend the arm(s) fully or partially other than
vertically so that freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact
with the arms occurs. A player may hold his/her hand(s) and arm(s) in front of
his/her own face or body for protection and to absorb force from an imminent
charge by an opponent.

4-24: ART. 5 It is not legal to use hands on an opponent which in any way inhibits
the freedom of movement of the opponent or acts as an aid to a player in starting
or stopping.
ART. 6 It is not legal to extend the arms fully or partially in a position other
than vertical so that the freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when
contact with the arms occurs. The extension of the elbows when the hands are
on the hips or when the hands are held near the chest or when the arms are held
more or less horizontally are examples of the illegal positions used.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Three years old (2011-12):

10-6 : CONTACT
ART. 1 A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.
ART. 2 A player shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless such contact is only with the opponent’s hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball.
ART. 3 A player shall not use his/her hands on an opponent in any way that inhibits the freedom of movement of the opponent or acts as an aid to a player in starting or stopping.

ART. 4 A player shall not extend the arm(s) fully or partially other than vertically so that freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the arms occurs. A player may hold his/her hand(s) and arm(s) in front of his/her own face or body for protection and to absorb force from an imminent charge by an opponent.

4-24:
ART. 5 It is not legal to use hands on an opponent which in any way inhibits the freedom of movement of the opponent or acts as an aid to a player in starting or stopping.
ART. 6 It is not legal to extend the arms fully or partially in a position other than vertical so that the freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the arms occurs. The extension of the elbows when the hands are on the hips or when the hands are held near the chest or when the arms are held more or less horizontally are examples of the illegal positions used.

Those items are exactly the same thing as we have today in concept. They just changed the wording to get people to make call. The specific acts that should have been a foul haven't changed.

Even if officials were not calling it under the excuse of RSBQ and advantage/disadvantage, the rulesmakers were telling us for years that such conclusions were wrong, that it WAS affecting RSBQ even if most officials thought otherwise, and that it was an advantage even if most officials thought otherwise. That had to make it absolutes so officials wouldn't keep ignoring it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Three years old (2011-12):

10-6 : CONTACT
ART. 1 A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress
of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by
bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.
ART. 2 A player shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless
such contact is only with the opponent’s hand while it is on the ball and is
incidental to an attempt to play the ball.
ART. 3 A player shall not use his/her hands on an opponent in any way that
inhibits the freedom of movement of the opponent or acts as an aid to a player in
starting or stopping.
ART. 4 A player shall not extend the arm(s) fully or partially other than
vertically so that freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact
with the arms occurs. A player may hold his/her hand(s) and arm(s) in front of
his/her own face or body for protection and to absorb force from an imminent
charge by an opponent.

4-24: ART. 5 It is not legal to use hands on an opponent which in any way inhibits
the freedom of movement of the opponent or acts as an aid to a player in starting
or stopping.
ART. 6 It is not legal to extend the arms fully or partially in a position other
than vertical so that the freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when
contact with the arms occurs. The extension of the elbows when the hands are
on the hips or when the hands are held near the chest or when the arms are held
more or less horizontally are examples of the illegal positions used.

That does not say all the things that is in 10-6-12. I never said there were not contact rules, but they were not descriptive as 10-6-12 and what is in 10-6-12 were once guidelines, not specific rules.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That does not say all the things that is in 10-6-12. I never said there were not contact rules, but they were not descriptive as 10-6-12 and what is in 10-6-12 were once guidelines, not specific rules.

Peace

All the things in 10-6-12 are covered in that. It was not so directly spelled out but since some many were just not getting, they spelled it out in simpler terms.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

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

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

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

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

I believe the rule support has always been there and that you were right in the 90s to call hand-checking a foul. The rule said a player SHALL not place a hand…
The people saying it was not a foul didn't have rule support imo. I think those folks muddied the waters. They were of the "let em play" mindset and called certain things "game interruptors."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I believe the rule support has always been there and that you were right in the 90s to call hand-checking a foul. The rule said a player SHALL not place a hand…
The people saying it was not a foul didn't have rule support imo. I think those folks muddied the waters. They were of the "let em play" mindset and called certain things "game interruptors."

Again, I never said anything about not being able to call a hand-checking foul before. The signal for hand-checking has been around for probably a little over 10 years now and you could call that a foul when you deemed it to be a foul. But the rule was never this specific or was interpreted the way it is now.

Do not make the discussion more complicated than it already is.

Peace