Fun With Arm Bars ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And it appears nothing was influencing the RSBQ in any way. So I guess technically if there is touching yes this is a foul ...

I was kind of on the fence on this call, looking for contact that influenced rhythm, speed, balance, and quickness (advantage/disadvantage).

However, over the past decade, the NFHS has been trying, through a rule change, and a Point of Emphasis, to clean up contact on ballhandlers:

Requires a personal foul be called any time this type of contact occurs on a player holding or dribbling the ball.

Needs this type of illegal contact on the perimeter ball handlers and dribblers eliminated.

Regardless of where it takes place on the court, when a player continuously places a hand on the ball handler/dribbler, it is a foul.

Hand checking is a foul and is not incidental contact.

Defensive players shall not have hand(s) on the offensive player. When a player has a hand on, two hands on or jabs a hand or forearm on an opponent, it is a foul.

[JRutledge]

If is early I hope this was called or at least something was addressed. But the bottom line it did not influence the movement of the player. So I would likely pass on that until it affected the player. When it does, no problem calling a foul. But do not see how much if any contact for the most part either. No problem if anyone calls it, but to me makes sense if not called.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If is early I hope this was called or at least something was addressed. But the bottom line it did not influence the movement of the player. So I would likely pass on that until it affected the player. When it does, no problem calling a foul. But do not see how much if any contact for the most part either. No problem if anyone calls it, but to me makes sense if not called.

Up until about ten years ago, I, and almost all of my local colleagues, had the same philosophy as JRutledge, adjudicating handchecking, like most other fouls, based on advantage and disadvantage.

But after the NFHS, through a rule change, and a Point of Emphasis, clearly indicted that it wanted to clean up contact on ballhandlers, and especially with my local board (interpreters, trainers, assigners, and observers) strongly echoing the intent of the NFHS, I, and almost of my local colleagues, have made this, pretty much, an "automatic" call, that we try to get early in the game.

One doesn't want the first "technical" handchecking call of the game coming with two minutes left in a three point game.

I will admit that it took some time for adjustment, but eventually our local officials, coaches, players, and fans all got on the same "handchecking consistency" page.

As usual, when in Rome ...

[JRutledge]

I am very aware of the stance from the NF, but there is still a part of what we do that falls into some philosophy. If you call a foul every time a player defender touches another player, you will be calling fouls all day. That is why I said I would like better angles on this play and would like some RSBQ to be influenced. Like to see a little more of the player be affected than a touch. BTW, I probably call more hand-checking than most, but still want something to influence the play. But very aware of the wording and ruling. And if you call a foul you might not get much blowback, but still want to get the bigger ones and this seemed very small from the angle.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you call a foul every time a player defender touches another player, you will be calling fouls all day.

My posts were only regarding handchecking fouls, not all fouls.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I will admit that it took some time for adjustment, but eventually our local officials, coaches, players, and fans all got on the same "handchecking consistency" page.

I know that it's hard to believe, but here in my little corner of Connecticut we're not calling handchecking fouls all day when a defender simply touches a ballhandler.

We're not. Really.

We call the first one we see (as a reminder to all stakeholders), and take it from there.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

One doesn't want the first "technical" handchecking call of the game coming with two minutes left in a three point game.

A decade later and I still find it hard to believe myself.

I never thought that this would be consistently enforced over time, and I was wrong.

Local interpreters, trainers, assigners, and observers all pushed a consistent approach to no tolerance for handchecking; Experienced veteran top-notch officials drank the Kool Aid and got onboard; journeymen officials and inexperienced officials followed their lead and example; and coaches, players, and fans adjusted.

It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen.

Coaches actually don't complain when "touch" handchecks are called.

They've gotten use to it and have adjusted, as have their players.

Coaches are actually more likely to complain when "touch" handchecks are not called.

You probably won't believe me, because I still find it hard to believe myself.

Local interpreters, trainers, assigners, and observers took the bull by the horns and voilà, here we are.

Of course, it helped to have the full backing of the NFHS.

Consistency is the key.



Again, when in Rome ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Local interpreters, trainers, assigners, and observers all pushed a consistent approach to no tolerance for handchecking; Experienced veteran top-notch officials drank the Kool Aid and got onboard; journeymen officials and inexperienced officials followed their lead and example; and coaches, players, and fans adjusted ... Local interpreters, trainers, assigners, and observers took the bull by the horns and voilà, here we are ...

I wish that the same thing would happen with fashion issues.

If we (local board) can all get on the same page with touch handchecks, why can't we all get on the same page with undershirts, headbands, wristbands, sleeves, etc.?

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
If turnips were watches, I'd wear one by my side.
If "ifs" and "ands" were pots and pans,
There'd be no work for tinkers' hands.
(1605)

[Raymond]

I haven't seen the video yet, but I know in my little corner of Virginia, we don't call enough hand-checking fouls at the HS level. The lower the skill of the ball-handlers, the more likely a hand-check will disrupt him/her. I've seen ball-handlers get maneuvered every which way and the on-ball official is just oblivious, LOL.

The higher the skill level, I'm more patient to see if the contact is actually affecting the ball-handler or preventing him from doing what he wants to do.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

My posts were only regarding handchecking fouls, not all fouls.

I was only talking about this video. I was not talking about other fouls. I do not need to talk holistically about fouls, in general, to get my point across here.

Peace

[sdoebler]

This is a foul. At .03-.04 the defender puts the back of his hand on the stomach of the offensive player as he trys to turn and accelerate. These are the type of plays where maybe you are unsure if it is effecting RSBQ or the play but the offensive player needs the ability to accelerate away from the defender and create space with speed. This is prevented by the hand actions of the defender.