thoughts on upspoken rules

[thedewed]

so is it accurate to say that an arm bar can't be used in the post at the high school level right now, but it can in college?

that hand on hand on the ball issue needs to be cleaned up in the college book and wherever else. not only on the rebound example, but a reach in, the the defender gets hand strictly on ball, but is the impetus for the ball to come out of the offense's hands, without technically touching the ball, the call everyone has always made is out on the 'stripper', rather than a foul or out on the player holding the ball. going to review and having the technical issue then forces officials, worried that review will overturn, to instead call a foul. why not spell it out in the book? while not a foul in that example, ball still goes to the offense, is the way the game has always been called and the better handling of that situation.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by thedewed

so is it accurate to say that an arm bar can't be used in the post at the high school level right now, but it can in college?

that hand on hand on the ball issue needs to be cleaned up in the college book and wherever else.

1) No, that's not accurate.

2) Send in your rule change proposal

[thedewed]

I was just taking 1 form what JRutledge said above. I don't have a current HS book.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by thedewed

so is it accurate to say that an arm bar can't be used in the post at the high school level right now, but it can in college?

It is actually not that simple. You cannot extend an arm onto a player at either level. College allows a more liberal use of the arm bar specifically in the post (a defined area) and outside of that there are more restrictions.

Originally Posted by thedewed

that hand on hand on the ball issue needs to be cleaned up in the college book and wherever else. not only on the rebound example, but a reach in, the the defender gets hand strictly on ball, but is the impetus for the ball to come out of the offense's hands, without technically touching the ball, the call everyone has always made is out on the 'stripper', rather than a foul or out on the player holding the ball.

Cleaned up why? The rule is clear. Contact with the hand while in contact with the ball is not illegal. The wrist, that is different.

NCAA Rule: 10-1-2

Art. 2. A player shall not contact an opponent with his 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.

Originally Posted by thedewed

going to review and having the technical issue then forces officials, worried that review will overturn, to instead call a foul. why not spell it out in the book? while not a foul in that example, ball still goes to the offense, is the way the game has always been called and the better handling of that situation.

I have no idea what this means.

Peace

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is actually not that simple. You cannot extend an arm onto a player at either level. College allows a more liberal use of the arm bar specifically in the post (a defined area) and outside of that there are more restrictions.



Cleaned up why? The rule is clear. Contact with the hand while in contact with the ball is not illegal. The wrist, that is different.





I have no idea what this means.

Peace

what it means is that every time a defender reaches in and gets the hand of the player holding the ball, and the ball gets the force of the action as well, the official sees the ball go the direction of the force, and calls it out on the defender. that's the way the game is called. if review shows that in actuality the defenders hand hit the hand of the offensive player, and let's face it, much of the time they don't get ball, they get hand, if the result when the play is reviewed is to give the ball to the defense, that is contrary to the way the game has always been called. the rules shouldn't be silent on that play, it should clarify that, while not a foul, the ball should be considered out on the defense in that situation, even though they didn't technically touch the ball.

it's common sense. that hand action is quick enough anyway that the best evidence for the official is the action of the ball after the defensive contact. if the ball action is perfectly consistent with the direction of the force from the defensive player, you give the ball to the offense. if it isn't, e.g. the ball pops up when the reach was down, it's evidence that the defender caught wrist rather than the ball OR the hand on the ball. the rulebook should endeavor to describe calling the game as it is actually called. I'm not submitting a rule change, I'm just spit balling.

so back to the arm bar, in the post a defender can use an arm bar, but can't displace the offensive player? I'm glad that is allowed, because defending the post is awkward without it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by thedewed

what it means is that every time a defender reaches in and gets the hand of the player holding the ball, and the ball gets the force of the action as well, the official sees the ball go the direction of the force, and calls it out on the defender. that's the way the game is called. if review shows that in actuality the defenders hand hit the hand of the offensive player, and let's face it, much of the time they don't get ball, they get hand, if the result when the play is reviewed is to give the ball to the defense, that is contrary to the way the game has always been called. the rules shouldn't be silent on that play, it should clarify that, while not a foul, the ball should be considered out on the defense in that situation, even though they didn't technically touch the ball.

Mostly what you are saying is anecdotal. I get that this bothers you but the rule is clear. No one is having this as an issue from all accounts. I do not see coaches talk about this (which is mostly who is on the NCAA Committee) or on the NF committee with administrators. Never seen this as a POE.

Now if this is an issue, they do surveys every year and take proposals for new rules (as Bob quickly stated).

Originally Posted by thedewed

it's common sense. that hand action is quick enough anyway that the best evidence for the official is the action of the ball after the defensive contact. if the ball action is perfectly consistent with the direction of the force from the defensive player, you give the ball to the offense. if it isn't, e.g. the ball pops up when the reach was down, it's evidence that the defender caught wrist rather than the ball OR the hand on the ball. the rulebook should endeavor to describe calling the game as it is actually called. I'm not submitting a rule change, I'm just spit balling.

Clearly. I doubt many people see this as a problem. I do not see this as a problem. Never heard another official talk about this as a problem at the NCAA level. I do not see enough plays either in my games or video where this is an issue. Also reaching is not a foul.

Originally Posted by thedewed

so back to the arm bar, in the post a defender can use an arm bar, but can't displace the offensive player? I'm glad that is allowed, because defending the post is awkward without it.

The post distinct applies to both offense and defense and an arm bar can be used to keep the player away from their body until the ball comes. When the ball comes they must get hands off for the most part. And the arm bar can only be in the back, not the side or the front of the body of the opponent.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thedewed

So is it accurate to say that an arm bar can't be used in the post at the high school level right now ...

No, it's actually quite inaccurate.

The arm bar is a legal move if the post defender just uses it to hold position. The defender can use the arm bar even if the post player backs into the defender's arm bar and contact occurs. If the defender uses the arm bar to push the post player, or uses it to displace the post player, then that's a pushing foul on the defender. If the post player backs into the defender's arm bar in such way that the defender is displaced, then that may be a foul on the post player, and if the post player has the ball, it may be a player control foul.

Here's an example: Team A has possession of the ball in their frontcourt. Defensive post player B1 is using a stationary arm bar to hold his position as offensive post player A1 positions himself on the free throw lane line block. As guard A2 attempts to pass the ball to post player A1, B1 extends his arm bar and displaces A1 from his position on the block. The official charges B1 with a pushing foul. Is the official correct? Yes (2016-17 NFHS Basketball Points of Emphasis, Rule 10-7-1)

Need citations, or references? You got it.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1024435

Originally Posted by thedewed

... that hand on hand on the ball issue needs to be cleaned up ... a reach in ... the ball to come out of the offense's hands, without technically touching the ball ... is the way the game has always been called ...

Nothing needs to be "cleaned up", and it's been called this way for a very long time, for almost forty years of officiating in my case.

It is legal use of hands to hit the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball. This includes holding, dribbling, passing, or even during a shot attempt. Striking a ball handler, or a shooter, on that player's hand (in contact with the ball) that is incidental to an attempt to play the ball is not a foul.

This is only in regard to a hand in contact with the ball, not a hand not in contact with ball, not a wrist, not a forearm.

Also, reaching in is not a foul. There must be illegal contact to have a foul. The mere act of reaching in is, by itself, nothing. If illegal contact does occur, it’s probably a holding foul, an illegal use of hands foul, or a hand check foul, but it's never any type of foul to hit the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball.

"Reaching in" should never be a part of any basketball official's vocabulary. We never use the phrase. Never. Ever.

Need citations, or references? You got it.

4-24-2: It is legal use of hands to reach to block or slap the ball controlled
by a dribbler or a player throwing for goal or a player holding it and accidentally
hitting the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball.

10-6-2: 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.

Period. 'Nuff said. End of story. Fini. Turn out the lights. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here. Say goodnight, Gracie. Sayonara baby. Hasta la vista, baby. That's my thirty-eight year old story and I'm sticking to it.

[thedewed]

Thanks. I understand reach isn't foul, was using shorthand. The contact on rebound, that is unfortunate because most everyone associated with the game would agree that the better result is the ball be awarded to inside player rather than out on inside player . I play enough and it happens enough that I wouldn't even go there. No one would believe that is a proper interpretation of the rules. It is a bad result. I don't think most associated with the game realize that is the way you all call it. If you quizzed players and coaches , the majority would say inside player awarded ball when outside player gets hand on inside players hand when inside players hand is on ball up top, and it goes out. Thanks though,

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by thedewed

Thanks. I understand reach isn't foul, was using shorthand. The contact on rebound, that is unfortunate because most everyone associated with the game would agree that the better result is the ball be awarded to inside player rather than out on inside player .

This usually comes up in NCAA where replay is used late in the game to review OOB plays. NCAA has had the opportunity to change the rule, but hasn't. (The next rules change cycle is next year.)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by thedewed

Thanks. I understand reach isn't foul, was using shorthand. The contact on rebound, that is unfortunate because most everyone associated with the game would agree that the better result is the ball be awarded to inside player rather than out on inside player . I play enough and it happens enough that I wouldn't even go there. No one would believe that is a proper interpretation of the rules. It is a bad result. I don't think most associated with the game realize that is the way you all call it. If you quizzed players and coaches , the majority would say inside player awarded ball when outside player gets hand on inside players hand when inside players hand is on ball up top, and it goes out. Thanks though,

Sounds like you are using a solution to find a problem. I do not care what players and coaches think of existing rules that they do not understand because that is not the things actual officials talk about. I have never said anything about who has inside position as it relates to being in an advantageous position. The inside player often does illegal stuff and is watched accordingly and at least in the NCAA tape that is clearly stated by the NCAA supervisor. And certainly, no one cares about where you are located if you are the one that is touching the ball and that is clearly seen. Replay makes it easier to get that situation right. I seriously doubt the rule is going to change over this in any way, even with next year being a rule change year (and for the record they already changed rules this year and this "problem" was not addressed).

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thedewed

The contact on rebound ...

Now I think that I fully understand your question. You're not talking about "over the back" contact, but rather some "hand to hand" contact between and inside and outside player on a rebound that ends up going out of bounds.

Situation: Inside player gets rebound, outside player, with no body to body contact, hits the hand of the inside player. The ball, only due to the hit, goes out of bounds off the inside player's hand.

Interesting question, but one that is covered by existing NFHS rules, and I was unaware of any myths regarding this situation.

As it's been for many years, the hand to hand contact described in this situation is totally legal.

4-24-2: It is legal use of hands to reach to block or slap the ball controlled
by a dribbler or a player throwing for goal or a player holding it and accidentally
hitting the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball.

10-6-2: 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.

In regard to whom caused the ball to go out of bounds, that's also been a very clear ruling for many years.

7-2-1: The ball is caused to go out of bounds by the last player in bounds
to touch it or be touched by it, unless the ball touches a player who is out of
bounds prior to touching something out of bounds other than a player.

So in the situation described above, there was no illegal hand to hand contact initiated by the outside player (and no illegal body to body contact), and the ball was last touched the inside player before going out of bounds, so the outside player's team will get the ball for a throwin.

End of story. Sayonara baby.

Originally Posted by thedewed

... most everyone associated with the game would agree that the better result is the ball be awarded to inside player rather than out on inside player ... If you quizzed players and coaches , the majority would say inside player awarded ball when outside player gets hand on inside players hand when inside players hand is on ball up top, and it goes out.

I absolutely disagree with you on this. I've made this call hundreds of times over the past thirty-eight years and have seldoom received any complaints from coaches, or players. Occasionally I'll get a question about a possible simultaneous touch by both players, or a question along the lines of, "Are you sure", or "Please check with your partner", but no major complaints. Maybe that's the belief of the guys you play pickup ball with at the YMCA, or on a playground's asphalt courts, but few involved with the interscholastic game, officials, coaches, and most players, have that erroneous view.

Now, if you're talking about this play being associated with an "over the back" (short hand) situation, that may be different, the "unofficial interpretation" of that has evolved over the years (mainly due to the availability, and increased usage, of video), and may still vary from locality to locality, and from level to level. Please see my earlier post (below).

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1024440

[thedewed]

yes, the over the back, as you describe it, where no contact down low, outside guy gets up and hits hand on inside guy while inside guys hand is on the ball, and my understanding is now that is ball to the outside /hand hitting hand guy.

with all due respect, i think it's a matter of a high profile TV game where instant replay shows this, and they give it to the outside guy and the officials tell the coaches that if outside guy hit hand, doesn't have to hit ball, he gets the ball, this will be changed. I would be surprised if this has been spelled out to coaches by officials, because it is a ludicrous result. I would be very surprised if D1 coaches understand that interpretation, and the tweak in how officials call it precisely because of the risk that replay will be their undoing. But what do I know, although I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

to tell the truth, I don't really understand why a replay can't result in a foul when one wasn't called on the play, rather than just out of bounds or whatever. If using replay, why not just go ahead and get it right?

thanks for all your time, you obviously know the current officiating environment.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thedewed

... a high profile TV game where instant replay shows this ... D1 coaches ...

Just to be 100% clear, my comments were strictly in regard to NFHS (high school) rules only. I'll have to let some of the Forum college guys give you the college version of the plays that I discussed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by thedewed

with all due respect, i think it's a matter of a high profile TV game where instant replay shows this, and they give it to the outside guy and the officials tell the coaches that if outside guy hit hand, doesn't have to hit ball, he gets the ball, this will be changed. I would be surprised if this has been spelled out to coaches by officials, because it is a ludicrous result. I would be very surprised if D1 coaches understand that interpretation, and the tweak in how officials call it precisely because of the risk that replay will be their undoing. But what do I know, although I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

Again this seems to bother you more than it does the participants. I have no idea why but never heard this as an issue at that level. But then again I do not work at that level but I do know several people that do.

Originally Posted by thedewed

to tell the truth, I don't really understand why a replay can't result in a foul when one wasn't called on the play, rather than just out of bounds or whatever. If using replay, why not just go ahead and get it right?

Because you would have 100 stoppages a game. There are only certain things that can be reviewed and it has to be done in that parameters.

Peace

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by thedewed

yes, the over the back, as you describe it, where no contact down low, outside guy gets up and hits hand on inside guy while inside guys hand is on the ball, and my understanding is now that is ball to the outside /hand hitting hand guy.

with all due respect, i think it's a matter of a high profile TV game where instant replay shows this, and they give it to the outside guy and the officials tell the coaches that if outside guy hit hand, doesn't have to hit ball, he gets the ball, this will be changed. I would be surprised if this has been spelled out to coaches by officials, because it is a ludicrous result. I would be very surprised if D1 coaches understand that interpretation, and the tweak in how officials call it precisely because of the risk that replay will be their undoing. But what do I know, although I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

to tell the truth, I don't really understand why a replay can't result in a foul when one wasn't called on the play, rather than just out of bounds or whatever. If using replay, why not just go ahead and get it right?

thanks for all your time, you obviously know the current officiating environment.

Replay can only result in a foul if the officials rule that the action that they reviewed constituted a flagrant 1 or 2 personal foul, a contact dead ball technical foul, or a flagrant technical foul. If there was no flagrant foul, but there was a common foul, on replay, officials can enforce the common foul. Replay can also determine whether there was a fight, and penalize the players involved. However, outside of 11-2-1-d, instant replay cannot create fouls. So, replay can result in fouls, but only in flagrant and/or technical fouls when there was a call, or a review was requested by a coach, or in common fouls, if there was evidence of such fouls when the review was initiated by the officials.