So I guess most if not all had the same mindset. But of course we know that you knew better than everyone else, so it was all "our" fault that the things you believe were not called properly. So when I went to camps in Texas and Kentucky and Indiana it was me that was telling everyone at the camp what should or should not be called?

Again, maybe you were on an island of that thinking, because I do not see anyone else saying that these were fouls or clearly listed on the book, even with folks that worked much longer than me that commented in this thread. Because we know that you were the absolute authority on this and many issues of what was in the actual rules or the interpretations of those rules as well. Not that the NF ever put out videos (which my state actually started the consortium and used by the NF for training in the early 2000s) and I cannot recall in any of those videos suggesting that we call fouls that when 10-6-12 did not exist. Yes, my mindset was such the problem that they never suggested to do otherwise.


Peace

Agreed and now its time to go blow my whistle....

You have a really short memory. Just read a few post above. Several mentioned it or alluded to it.

And I never said it was uncommon or that you are many others were alone. I called it the way you did and as did everyone else.

You can certainly have your own opinion of how you think it should be called or how you were taught to call it, but you can't have your own facts. This sequence of events around this is all well documented across several years of rule books, interpretations, POEs, etc.

It was called that way for decades long before you and I became officials. Then, without a rule change, these fouls (illegal use of hands) were no longer being called under the misguided use of the generally reasonable philosophy of advantage/disadvantage. The NFHS/NCAA/etc. tried to bring it back to they way it was by issuing POEs (under illegal use of hands) only to be essentially ignored. As a last resort, to get everyone's attention, and to not leave any way for it to be ignored, they made them absolutes. Those are the facts. You can choose to deny them, but that doesn't make them any less true.

All I am saying is if that was the case where the rules were "very clear" then there would have been other examples to illustrate those positions. Remember the NF has made not only a Guidebook for years to start the season and as long as I can remember a Simplified and Illustrated book. Then when video was at their disposal, there were no references to these things you suggest were fouls. Now why is that? Maybe there was people that did not agree with your position. Now if I am wrong, show me some evidence or reference of such things in the current rules that said they wanted fouls for simply putting hands on a dribbler or even two hands must be called? You keep referencing a part of the rules that implies some illegal activity, but did not state that these situations were "automatic" fouls or that we did not consider incidental contact rules.

You can tell me all day what the rules said, but if I recall you are not a rules maker or even a person that published information about how these things were to be called. I know that certainly does not apply to me and when I attended camps (even attended John Adam's camp before he became the NCAA Supervisor) there were no standards for those things we call now to be fouls. There just wasn't that feeling. And the NCAA also had videos for some years to back up their positions, but only took on those directives when John Adams became the NCAA Supervisor on the Men's side. There were handchecking guidelines before, but they were not considered "automatics" for some time. And the rules in those cases were more vague and not as descriptive.

And finally you say it was called that way for decades, but the game was not played the same way for decades either. Actually when I was playing in the 80s, we did not even think to defend the way players did after I left high school. We never touched an opponent because we were encouraged to not move their feet and even did not defend the 3 the same way they do today. That kind of shot was not taken that often as it is today. So if it was called that way, not sure they played that way for decades. I have watched old videos on ESPN Classic or older videos and it is clear that the game is not played the same, let alone called the same. And many times small contact was called that was later seen as game interrupters, when players were not displaced.

Peace

And why was that? Because it was considered a foul. Imagine that. Hmmm.

You've just confirmed what I've been saying.

Lol!!!

So touching an opponent was a foul? Interesting. Seems like 4-27 said clearly otherwise.

And you still are not convincing anyone but yourself. And it appears again you were the only one in the country calling touching as a foul. Which is not even the current rule. ;)

Peace

Never said that simply touching was a foul...but it didn't take much.

Plus ca change. Plus c'est la meme chose.

15-50. 6 yesterday.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Either way, they had to put in a rule to make it clear for everyone that these are specific actions are fouls. If the rules were clear previously as state, they would have kept them the same or the rules would never change in language in order to get the appropriate application of what is wanted in the game. There is also a reason we have interpretations as well. Life is too short to worry about what once was. We are in a newer era and the rules and interpretations reflect that era.

Peace

The reason the automatics were written into the rulebook, is because we as a whole were not enforcing the hand checking, illegal use of hands rules already written into the rulebook. Advantage/disadvantage was being used as well as RSBQ. Each official is different and what I might think is and advantage or disadvantage, someone else might not. Therefore, the automatics came about. If you do A, B, C, or D. Its a foul.