Fun With Arm Bars ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This video much of the "contact" was not seen.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...J4vivTJh4D.mp4

I spotted three separate extended arm bar contacts (including switching arms) by Red #4 against ball handler White #0 over a period of about five seconds. Spotted the contact first time viewing the video. First contact, with Red #4's left arm, was the strongest and longest (wasn't short-lived) contact of the three, and easy to spot. Upon further review, the second contact, this one also by Red #4's left arm, against White's 0's left shoulder and upper arm, was very short in duration, but it was there. The third and last last contact, this one by Red #4's right arm, near the elbow, was the least clear of the three, so I could be persuaded that there was no actual contact there at all.

That's how I broke down this video in regard to NFHS philosophy (but not necessarily in regard to any different local philosophy), with no discussion regarding rhythm, speed, balance, quickness, advantage, or disadvantage.

JRutledge saw no contact. No contact, or not seeing any contact, means no foul, by everybody's philosophy. Can't argue with that.

Of course, JRutledge could also argue that the last two contacts didn't occur, and that the first contact was a nothing more than a legal hot stove touch, thus no foul.

I'm not sure if the hot stove touch exception applies to an extended arm bar? That could be up for discussion.

We have to agree to disagree.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

JRutledge saw no contact. No contact, or not seeing any contact, means no foul, by everybody's philosophy. Can't argue with that.

We have to agree to disagree.

No, we are screened from the action of the defender most of the video. That does not mean there is no contact.

But again I keep remember I have having this conversation with an official that has never gone to camp, does not train officials and has never worked post season in their jurisdiction.

So I cannot argue is right.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have having this conversation with an official that has never gone to camp, does not train officials, and has never worked post season in their jurisdiction.

Been to dozens of camps, local, state, and regional, all high school, no college. Never a trainer at a camp.

Been on three training committees, once for rules, twice for mechanics, currently serving on the mechanics training committee.

Lots of post season games, conference (league) post season games, including one conference championship final. No state tournament games.

Apology, or more insults? JRutledge can decide which way to go, or to do nothing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No, we are screened from the action of the defender most of the video. That does not mean there is no contact.

Agree. It's basketball. There is always contact. It's a contact sport.

If one is screened (straight-lined, stacked), and doesn't observe contact, then one can only rule that there was no contact. Don't guess.

I only commented on the contact that I actually saw, not on what I didn't see, no guessing to fill in the blanks.

I didn't guess on the third contact, I saw contact, but it was the least obvious of all the contact that I observed upon further review.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

JRutledge could also argue that the last two contacts didn't occur, and that the first contact was a nothing more than a legal hot stove touch, thus no foul. I'm not sure if the hot stove touch exception applies to an extended arm bar? That could be up for discussion.

If one believes that there was only the first contact, then deciding if it was a legal single short-lived hot stove touch (rather than an arm bar) contact depends on the duration of contact, and may involve rhythm, speed, balance, quickness, advantage, or disadvantage.

My opinion. Three (multiple) separate extended arm bar contacts (only a single (one) arm bar would have met the rule parameter for an "automatic" foul). No need to discuss single short-lived hot stove touches, duration of such, or rhythm, speed, balance, quickness, advantage, or disadvantage, per NFHS philosophy.

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

... our association members would call a 'hand-check' foul at the second, or at the latest, the third arm bar.

[JRutledge]

It is all about angles.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is all about angles.

Nice meme. Should be used in all training for basketball officials.

Classic straight-line.

“A picture is worth a thousand words” (Henrik Ibsen, Norwegian playwright, 1828-1906)

[BillyMac]

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...J4vivTJh4D.mp4

IAABO Play Commentary Correct Answer: This is a handchecking foul.

As the player receives the ball, the defender places his left hand on the ball handler. As the offensive player begins to dribble, the defender extends an arm bar into the dribbler's torso. When the dribbler changes directions, the defender then places his right hand on the dribbler's torso.

This contact committed by the defender on the ball handler is clearly illegal, and a foul should have been ruled as soon as the arm bar was extended into the torso of the dibbler. Nearly 85% of respondents were correct to deem this contact illegal and assess a foul to the defender on this play.

For the 15% of respondents who ruled this contact incidental, many commented that the dribbler's freedom of movement was not inhibited, so the contact should be incidental. When it comes to contact on a ball-handler, this approach is not supported by rule 10-7-12.

The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a ball handler/dribbler.
a. Placing two hands on the player.
b. Placing an extended armbar on the player.
c. Placing and keeping a hand on the player.
d. Contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands.

In these four instances, the rules are telling officials that the contact is inhibiting the ball handler, and a foul must be ruled. In recent years, officials at all levels have made great strides in enforcing these rules. Keep the defender's hands off ball handlers should be a priority for officials every time they step on the court to officiate the game.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a handchecking foul 85% (including me). This is not a handchecking foul 15%.

[Pantherdreams]

Multiple touches with extended hand/arm. Arm/hand placement can act as a lever to guide or angle offensive player (no evidence of that from this angle). Hand/arm placement on body is limiting ability for offensive player to access both hands easily (using illegal contact to limit movement). At one point on the second change of direction hand fighting occurs which is clearly initiated by the defense.

I know a number of colleagues and coaches who would kill this call as being "Soft" or an " interrupter" but this is hand checking call all night every night.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

... an "interrupter" ...

It seems that my local board used the term "interrupter" (in regard to many calls, not just limited to handchecks) at almost every meeting between forty years ago and twenty years ago, but for the past twenty years, especially the past ten years, we seldom, if ever, hear the term.

Wonder if it has anything to do with the proliferation of video? Every player's grandmother in the bleachers has a high definition video camera in her cell phone these days, and she's not afraid to use it.

I no longer make "close" out of bounds calls based on who "should" get the ball. Now, if it's a foul, I call the foul. Contact isn't a foul, I don't call the foul. If it barely goes off a player's fingertips, I give the ball to the other team. No more thinking to myself, "There was a little contact there, I'll give the ball to the player who was contacted. Two happy coaches. One because his player didn't pick up a foul. One because his team got the ball".

No more. Those days are long gone.