Fun With Arm Bars ...

[Raymond]

On this play, I don't think RSBQ was affected. I don't see the ball handler trying to do anything that the defense is preventing him from doing.

Now if you want to call a foul for a stayed hand, then you would be justified.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

On this play, I don't think RSBQ was affected. I don't see the ball handler trying to do anything that the defense is preventing him from doing ...

Agree.

However, the NFHS, through a 2014-15 rule change, and a 2012-13 Point of Emphasis, has clearly indicted that it wants to clean up contact on ballhandlers, with zero tolerance for handchecks (except for a single "hot stove" touch, note that the rule states "more than once").

In this video, the defender actually placed three separate and different extended arm bars on the ball handler, even switching arms.

In a real game, I could (maybe) let the first arm bar go, but the second, and especially the third, can't be ignored, and there wasn't much time for a, "Hands off".

[ilyazhito]

In my response to the video on RefQuest, I called a foul for a stayed hand. Indeed, stayed hand is the most common type of handcheck I have had, followed by two hands on a ball handler.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree.

However, the NFHS, through a 2014-15 rule change, and a 2012-13 Point of Emphasis, has clearly indicted that it wants to clean up contact on ballhandlers, with zero tolerance for handchecks (except for a single "hot stove" touch, note that the rule states "more than once").

In this video, the defender actually placed three separate and different extended arm bars on the ball handler, even switching arms.

In a real game, I could (maybe) let the first arm bar go, but the second, and especially the third, can't be ignored, and there wasn't much time for a, "Hands off".

There's a reason a had a 2nd paragraph in my response. You chose to edit it out for the purposes of your response.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

If this is what you think the rule is to call, then no one and I mean no one calls this that way at all. Usually, something has to be influenced to even get a call and if all you did was touch, then not many officials are following the rule. And I have heard many start to state to let something happen before you call this. Was the case at several camps I attended just this summer. And the NCAA has the very same rules but still wants you to know when to call this and not when to call this.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

There's a reason a had a 2nd paragraph in my response. You chose to edit it out for the purposes of your response.

Originally Posted by Raymond

Now if you want to call a foul for a stayed hand, then you would be justified.

Wasn't sure what a "stayed hand", or a "staid hand", was.

If it was an arm bar, we agree.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

... stayed hand ...

Never use this phrase here in my little corner of Connecticut.

Block out. Box out. Regional differences.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Wasn't sure what a "stayed hand", or a "staid hand", was.

If it was an arm bar, we agree.



Never use this phrase here in my little corner of Connecticut.

Block out. Box out. Regional differences.

Just a description of an action

remained in the same place.

remained in a specified state or position.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... then no one and I mean no one calls this ... not many officials are following the rule.

No one, or not many?

I believe that JRutledge works, or has worked, in at least two different states, but has JRutledge observed officials here in my little corner of Connecticut?

Back in 2012-13 and 2014-15 when the NFHS made this a priority, my local board made this a priority.

I actually remember sitting there and saying to myself, "This will be a flash in the pan. No way this will survive the test of time".

I was wrong. Probably because coaches like it that way. Consistency is the key.

If coaches had pushed back over the years, the NFHS's attempt to eliminate almost all handchecks would have been long forgotten here in my local area, and we would probably be back to advantage/disadvantage.

Once again, as usual, when in Rome ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Just a description of an action...

Stayed hand. With posts by Raymond and ilyazhito, I get it now.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No one, or not many?

I believe that JRutledge works, or has worked, in at least two different states, but has JRutledge observed officials here in my little corner of Connecticut?

Back in 2012-13 and 2014-15 when the NFHS made this a priority, my local board made this a priority.

I actually remember sitting there and saying to myself, "This will be a flash in the pan. No way this will survive the test of time".

I was wrong. Probably because coaches like it that way. Consistency is the key.

If coaches had pushed back over the years, the NFHS's attempt to eliminate almost all handchecks would have been long forgotten here in my local area, and we would probably be back to advantage/disadvantage.

You are kind of missing the point. Yes, it is technically a foul if there is constant touching. Yes, the rules prohibit there to be constantly touching a player with a forearm. But there are not many officials that are calling it that explicit and that is in the multiple places I officiate. Again the NCAA is much more strict on that and we still message the rule when we can at that level. There is a video out every week during the season highlighting 10-1-4 fouls (where the NF rule came from) and even in practice, it is hard to find someone call this specific play mentioned as a foul without some movement or stopping of the ball handler here. And when you call something like this, it does not necessarily go over well either. And I am sorry I do not use coaches as the gauge for anything, because they want any touching to be a foul when clearly a defender has not placed or extended their arms on a ball handler. Now it is much more accepted to make this foul call, but the play you showed it is hard to see how much if any contact the defender is making for much of the video. It looks like a handchecking foul, but is it really a handchecking foul?

This is why during plays like this I say, "Hands, hands, hands, hands" even before they touch the player so they are aware of the possibility of what I am seeing. Also, there is an interpretation where I live about the "hot stove" touch in which you are allowed one touch of the ball handler and then have to remove that arm immediately and it not be a foul. It does look like he touches the dribbler near the endline and the rest is hard to see. That is why for me if the angle is at issue, I need to see some RSBQ be influenced. If there is no "open look" by me which we rarely have in this video, then I feel more confident to make this call. Just like the shoulder video, we cannot see if there is contact even if the ball handler looks like he created contact. Call things you see, not what it "looks like."

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... This is why during plays like this I say, "Hands, hands, hands, hands" even before they touch the player so they are aware of the possibility of what I am seeing.

Agree. I won't do it more than once for each team.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In a real game, I could (maybe) let the first arm bar go, but the second, and especially the third, can't be ignored, and there wasn't much time for a, "Hands off".

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... there is an interpretation where I live about the "hot stove" touch in which you are allowed one touch of the ball handler and then have to remove that arm immediately and it not be a foul ...

The single legal "hot stove touch" is not just a local interpretation where JRutledge lives, it's written into the actual NFHS rule for everybody to follow, be it in Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, Alaska, Missouri, Nevada, California, Oregon, Wisconsin, Ohio, Maryland, etc.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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 arm bar 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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... NFHS ... zero tolerance for handchecks (except for a single "hot stove" touch, note that the rule states "more than once") ...

Once again, and as usual, when in Rome ...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. I won't do it more than once for each team.

What do you mean once for each team? What I said applies to the player guarding the ball in that moment. Not once a game and then after that any touch is a foul.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The single legal "hot stove touch" is not just a local interpretation where JRutledge lives, it's written into the actual NFHS rule for everybody to follow, be it in Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, Alaska, Missouri, Nevada, California, Oregon, Wisconsin, Ohio, Maryland, etc.

Once again, and as usual, when in Rome ...

Where is this interpretation? We were told this years ago and emphasized by our people in Illinois. I have never heard anyone in Indiana explicitly state this but no one calls it as you claim to state it should be called. Should it be? That is a different situation.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What do you mean once for each team?

If I decide to give a warning (or two), never a given for me in any particular game, I'm not giving warnings for "touch" handchecking all night long.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Where is this interpretation?

Technically, it isn't an interpretation.

It doesn't have to be because it's explicitly and clearly written right there in the rule language, no further interpretation is necessary.

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 arm bar 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.

If it isn't illegal, it's legal.

10-7-12-D allows for a legal single "hot stove" touch.

One "hot stove" touch is legal (if it isn't illegal, it's legal).

A "more than once" hot stove touch is illegal handchecking.

[JRutledge]

Not exactly the example I am discussing, but not trying to go down that rabbit hole right now.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not exactly the example I am discussing, but not trying to go down that rabbit hole right now.

Pretty much word for word.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... the "hot stove" touch in which you are allowed one touch of the ball handler and then have to remove that arm immediately and it not be a foul.

And I agree 100% with JRutledge's interpretation.