thoughts on upspoken rules
 

I don't officiate anymore but still play pickup and some rules have come up, and it got me to look at the current book and do some thinking.

First of all, I didn't realize that the forearm in the back arm bar is essentially allowed in postplay, I read if not displacing and is met with similar resistance. That is great, when did that addition get made? I think they tried to remove it, but playing w/o an armbar in the post is awkward and not a realistic view of how defense has to be able to play.

The hand part of the ball language also seems to include when shooting? I take that to mean if hitting the ball coming from behind and catch the hand while on the ball, hitting it forward, it's not a foul. Surely any contact on either hand from the front, prior to the shot, is a foul? And for contact after the shot, if just a tap a hand, I didn't call, but a displacement of the arm after the shot, or not being allowed to land cleanly, were fouls

Here's another interesting question. I always called a rebound tip out where an outside player hit the inside player's hand, and the inside player's hand was on the ball trying to control it, as simply out on the outside player. But you could read the rule as saying that that contact is legal because the inside player's hand is on the ball, and if the outside players hand doesn't touch the ball, could you call it out on the inside player? the third choice is calling a foul, and I wouldn't do that either. I'd give the ball to the inside player's team.

thoughts?

1) It's always been there in some form or another. It was emphasized in FED when they went to the "automatic" foul of an arm bar on the BHD. Some codes used to have a limit on "points of contact" in the post, etc.

2) Correct.

3) By rule, OOB on the "inside player" -- and you see that sometimes in D-1 with replay. At the levels most of us do without replay, OOB on the "outside player" is the expected call.

So I take it that the reason it is called out on the inside player with replay is because technically under the rules if there's no foul called then it is on the out on the inside player. I would think that that should be a clarification in the rules in that situation cuz it comes up quite a bit, where the outside player on a rebound is over the inside player in hits his hand while the hands on the ball, it should be out on the outside player. That sure is the fair way to call it

Hand In Contact With Ball ...
 

It is legal use of hands to accidentally 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 that is incidental to an attempt to play the ball is not a foul.

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.

And stop calling me Shirley.

Post Play ...
 

2012-13 POINTS OF EMPHASIS
Post play. Any tactic using hands, arms or body to control the movement of an opposing player.
Examples of illegal post play.
1. Hooking by the offensive player
2. Pushing, holding or slapping an opponent
3. Dislodging an opponent by using a leg or knee to the rear of an opponent
4. Dislodging an opponent by backing them down

2015-16 POINTS OF EMPHASIS
Post Play. New information has been added to the Rule Book that addresses cleaning up post play.
It is legal for offensive and defensive players to touch when both are maintaining a legally established position.
Illegal contact on a post player is any tactic using hands or arms or just generally demonstrates rough physical
movements that allows a player on offense or defense to control the movement of an opposing player.
It is a foul and should be ruled as such when:
a. An opponent is displaced from a legally established or obtained position;
b. An arm-bar is extended and displaces an opponent;
c. A locked and/or extended elbow displaces an opponent;
d. A leg or knee is used in the rear of an opponent to hold or displace;
e. Holding, hooking, slapping, pinning or pushing the leg or body of an opponent;
f. An offensive post player “backs-down” and displaces the defender once that defender has established a legal guarding position.

2016-17 NFHS BASKETBALL POINTS OF EMPHASIS
Post Play. This was an area of improvement last year and continues to be an area of awareness and enforcement. A review of the criteria is as follows:
- An opponent is displaced from a legally established or obtained position
- An arm-bar is extended and displaces an opponent
- A locked and/or extended elbow displaces an opponent
- A leg or knee is used in the rear of an opponent to hold or displace
- Holding, hooking, slapping, pinning or pushing the leg or body of an opponent
- An offensive post player “backs-down” and displaces the defender once that defender has obtained a legal guarding position

The problem is that there are differences between high school rules and other levels on this very topic. You can use a forearm at other levels in the post like NCAA Men's and Pro/NBA Rules, but the post is defined as a specific place on the court that would have markings where that place is located. You cannot have the expectation that everyone is aware of only high school rules if you are playing with older people that might have experience with college and above. After all, this is a pickup game if I am reading this right and I am going to assume you are dealing with adults for the most part or people that are not currently playing high school ball. I am also going to assume that a pickup game does not have actual officials, so this seems like a moot point.

Peace

Hey Grandma, Whose Ball Is It ???
 

Many years ago, before every grandmother in the bleachers had a cell phone that could videotape an entire game, I would rather call a close out of bounds call off the outside player (even though the ball last touched the inside player) instead of calling an "over the back" on outside player, and give the ball to the inside player's team for a throwin. Here, in my little corner of Connecticut, we all did it that way, that's the way it was done back then, pure and simple. Coaches never complained. Players almost never complained.

Today, with videotape of games showing up all over the internet, I call it exactly as I see it. Illegal advantage contact from the outside player is a pushing foul. Or, if the ball goes out off the inside player, I give the ball to the outside player's team for a throwin.

I don't need any early morning phone calls from my assignment commissioner, "Good morning BillyMac. I have a few questions about a call that you made last night. A coach just emailed me a videotape that shows ...".

Or worse, to have the video show up on the Forum, "Hey BillyMac, is that you with the black belt screwing up that easy call?".

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.

1) No, that's not accurate.

2) Send in your rule change proposal

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

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.

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).

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. ;)

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

'Nuff Said ...
 

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

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.

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,

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.)

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

Now That's Different ...
 

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.

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

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.

The General Electric College Bowl ...
 

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.

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.

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

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.

It's automatically a review in the last two minutes (?) of a game when there's any question on who might have last touched the ball

Coaches, ADs, and college commissioners write the rules, we only enforce them. If it is a ludicrous result you need to address that with coaches, ADs, and college commissioners, not officials.

Black Or White (Michael Jackson, 1991) …
 

Too bad it wasn't a Holiday Inn Express.

I got a great night's sleep last night, and when I woke up this morning (looking at the right side of the grass) this was still the NFHS rule:

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.

Officials, in the past, may have unofficially (wink, wink) interpreted this rule (the rule itself didn't change) differently given a situation involving a choice of calling a possible, close "over the back" foul, or giving the ball to the "wrong" team (everybody's happy, team doesn't get the ball it rightly deserves, but it also doesn't get a close "over the back" foul that it may, or may not deserve). Many officials no longer interpret this situation this way, living in the age of everything being recorded (my neighbor, across the street, just informed me that if I ever suspect that a package was stolen off my front stoop, that she's got a camera aimed in my house's general direction, and that she can check out the situation to help the police).

Officials have never tweaked Rule 7-2-1 in regard to legal "hand to hand in contact with the ball contact". This, and the situation above, are not comparable situations because while "over the back" contact may be illegal in some cases, "hand to hand in contact with the ball contact" has never been illegal. It's like comparing apples to meatloaf © 2018 Raymond.

It's black, or it's white, there's no gray. "Hand to hand in contact with the ball contact" is legal, and Rule 7-2-1 persists in this situation. Ball goes to the team that didn't touch it last. Period. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

The "over the back everybody's happy" situation? Well, that's another story for another time. I'll bring the s'mores.

I always preferred through the back, it displacement, rather than over the back. Shouldn't penalize athletes that can go and get it unless they actually displace someone in between.

I guess I would be surprised to hear a d1 coach has actually been told, or understands, that if his inside guy goes up to gather with one hand, and someone jumps from behind him and hits his guys hand while it's on the ball, and it goes out, it's out on his guy. I'll ask someone that coaches at that level sometime.

Coaches need to do a better job with rules study and paying attention to preseason rules videos and clinics.

Over The Back ...
 

Point taken, but please note that I always used the phrase "over the back" in quotes. As an official, I should never use the phrase "over the back", but in the case of this thread I thought that it brought clarity to the situation.

From my magazine article:

"Over the back", reported by an official to the table on a rebounding foul, is, in reality, probably a pushing foul. Over the back is not necessarily a foul. There must be illegal contact to have a foul. A taller player may often be able to get a rebound over a shorter player, even if the shorter player has good rebounding position. If the shorter player is displaced, then a pushing foul must be called, and this should be reported to the table as such.

I don't know about unspoken rules but I do know rules tend to be pretty straight forward.

Specifically if the ball goes out of bounds then whoever last touched the ball is responsible and the other team gets the ball.

If you feel like someone gained an advantage (getting the ball back) because of contact that can be deemed a foul. Then call the foul.

Because Billy Mac likes it so much likes it so much when I speak Canadian I believe their is a shinny expression that applies (fyi shinny is an informal pickup hockey game with limited gear and rules):

Toques don't fall of on their own.

If something happens that shouldn't because of illegal contact then that contact is not ok.

Toques ???
 

I couldn't have said it better myself. Simple. To the point. It's the Canadian way.

Toques? Let me whip out my Canadian-American dictionary.

Misty Water Colored Memories ...
 

We call it pond hockey. No goals, just rocks on the ice. No goaltenders. No hard checking. Keep the puck on the ice. No pads, no helmets. Some had padded hockey gloves, others wore work gloves. I hated it when the puck slid over to the deeper part of the pond where the water wasn't frozen. Lost lots of pucks that way. Also hated it when one of my friends slid over to the deeper part of the pond where the water wasn't frozen. Lost lots of friends that way. Those heavy hockey skates make it hard to come up for air.

More on the issue at college level of inside player going up for rebound, has one hand in contact, outside player also goes up and hits player 1's hand while on ball and ball goes out of bounds. some of you said by rule in college this is out on inside guy, whose hand was hit, since it was on ball, and we have that exception. I don't think that is right, because in the rule book, it says it only applies where there is player control. there is no player control if a rebounder gets up and initially gets one hand on the ball, with opponent having his hand on inside player's hand and knocking it out of bounds. One hand on ball in this situation is not player control.

The NCAA language:

It shall be legal for a defender to accidentally hit the hand of a ballhandler when reaching to block or slap the ball when there is player control with
that player’s hand in contact with the ball and when that player is:
a. A dribbler;
b. Attempting a try for field goal; or
c. Holding the ball.

No player control? then contact not within this exception.

So it's either a foul or out on outside guy. I suppose technically under the rules some would say it's a foul, but I can't imagine that is the way anyone in D1 calls it. in any event, it's not out on the inside guy, and no one at the college level should be under the impression that is the right call, because there was no player control. High school might not have the player control language, I don't know. Of course if it doesn't, I imagine it is simple oversight.

On related note, watched game yesterday, don't know who, where late, might have been UK/Alabama? Yes it was. Bama ahead 3 maybe, has backcourt throwin, 30 seconds or so left, the Bama player receiving throw-in has arm hit by defender and ball goes out of bounds, call was off of Bama. On replay crystal clear it was a foul, technically off Bama but the ballhandler was fouled, ball still went to UK. Bama ended up winning, but could have lost due to that call.

I'm not saying the should expand the circumstances under which the review, but when they review, if they see a foul in the play being reviewed that is determinative, as here, they should be able to get it right. The announcer, Bilas I believe said as much.

Jay Bilas is an idiot. I have nothing of value to add to the conversation other than to say if you’re getting your rules knowledge or interpretations from him, you may find yourself labeled in the same camp as him.

Bilus wasn't saying they should expand the number of reviews, but when they did review, they might as well go ahead and get it right. Hard to argue with that.

Something Jay Bilas and those of the same mindset need to address to the coaches, ADs, and conference commissioners who write the rules. We only enforce the rules, and one of those rules is that replay cannot be used to assess non-flagrant fouls.

He wasn't commenting on the officiating, he was commenting on the fact they couldn't address a foul in the replay, and he was making a valid point.

Exactly.

The coaches never get any blame for these rules that they write that fans, commentators, and writers always complain about.

Then that statement needs to be made in the "Coaches/ADs/Commissioners" forum where somebody can do something about it. All I care about in this situation is did the officials properly use or not use the monitor.

As I recall, the NBA tweaked its rule because of a play like this in a game involving the Lakers. Late in a close game, ball was awarded to Lakers on an OOB call. Review showed (1) the ball was last touched by a Laker, and (2) there was a clear foul on the opponent. Only (1) was reviewable, so the call on the floor was reversed and the other team got the ball.