Fun With Arm Bars ...

[Raymond]

You might want to pull up the thread where we argued what the definition of "hot stove" touching is.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You might want to pull up the thread where we argued what the definition of "hot stove" touching is.

I couldn't find an entire thread with an argument about the "definition" of "hot stove touch" but found a ton of threads, and posts, debating the decade old change from advantage/disadvantage to "automatic" on handchecking fouls.

Some experienced, veteran Forum members say that the decade old change actually wasn't a big change, that is was there, in less clear form, all the time, but that officials were doing a "piss-poor" job of enforcing (relying too heavily on advantage/disadvantage).

Observations from both long-time veteran officials, and from those that played back in the day, say that semi-legal handchecking only became a "thing" twenty, or thirty years ago, and that back forty, or fifty, years ago there was a zero tolerance policy in place, that somehow evolved (as the game of basketball often does) into handchecking becoming more acceptable, thus the need for a change ten years ago re-set back to a zero (almost zero) tolerance.

If I recall correctly, back when I was playing basketball in the late 1960's, early 1970's, a defender placing a hand on a ball handler was strictly verboten.

In my search I found that there was no real closure, or consensus, to the advantage-disadvantage/automatic debate due to a few veteran, experienced, Forum members who really stick to their guns in the face of opposition from many similar veteran, experienced, Forum members. Gotta admire persistence and tenacity, especially with a minority opinion.

This was much to my dismay because anybody who's been on the Forum for any length of time knows how much I appreciate closure or consensus.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

He was just playing defense and trying to measure up. Instead of using a one-hand hot stove touch, he used two hands / multiple touches. Automatic foul, Common every time.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we refer to the first, only, and short-lived touch of ball handler by a defender as a legal "hot stove touch". Any hand contact beyond that becomes justification to adjudicate a hand check foul.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We had our local board's annual interpretation (new rules) meeting a few nights ago. We were shown several video sequences regarding the new freedom of movement rule ... In a few sequences the defender appeared to be making "normal" hand, and arm, movements as he tried to keep up, and change directions, with the ball handler, trying to maintain his balance without falling down (i.e., when we run, we move our arms), and there were a few, what appeared to be, accidental touches (certainly not deliberate, and not seeming to effect the ball handler's balance, rhythm, speed, quickness, etc.). In all cases we were told to call these fouls. It appears that incidental contact, and advantage/disadvantage, are no longer part of the equation in regard to defending the ball handler.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I have always interpreted "hot stove" as meaning one touch, immediately removed.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You might want to pull up the thread where we argued what the definition of "hot stove" touching is.

I think I found what Raymond was referring to, a thread from 2014 that started out as a discussion regarding the 2012-13 NFHS Points of Emphasis on illegal post play and freedom of movement in the post, that suddenly took a drastic turn, spiraling out of control, ending up with a debate, with multiple opinions from many Forum members, about the importance, or the lack of importance, of the time difference between a first handcheck touch and a second handcheck touch.

If you enjoy watching archival film of the Hindenburg disaster, you'll enjoy this thread.

191 posts, spanning NFHS, NCAAM, and NCAAW, with no closure or consensus.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

... trying to read the minds of the rule committee to be an exercise in futility.

Be sure to load up on snacks because it's a lengthy thread.

Surprisingly, for some reason, I chose not to join the debate, just three posts by me. I know. Hard to believe. I must have been busy with non-minutiae stuff that day. Maybe because I was still working my day job as a chemist back in 2014. Somebody had to make sure that Connecticut's water was safe.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tml#post940999

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Technically, it isn't an interpretation

I was wrong. It is an interpretation, an old one, but it does exist.

Originally Posted by Raymond

2001-2002 Interpretations Part 2. SITUATION 17: Al is slowly dribbling the ball up the court. Bl is lightly “tagging” Al, but is not impeding Al’s forward motion. The official warns Bl to “keep hands off.” RULING: This is a foul. There is no warning. (10-6-1)

Originally Posted by mick

2001-2002 POE Handchecking, Rough Play, Hands Off
Defenders are not permitted to have hands on the dribbler!
The measuring up of an opponent (tagging) is hand-checking, is not permitted, and is a FOUL.
Use of a forearm, regardless of the duration of the contact is A FOUL.
Hand-checking is not incidental contact.

Not my capital letters. Maybe the NFHS's? Maybe mick's?

For the record, I'm not adverse to a warning, the lower the level, the more I am likely to warn. Yeah, I know, I'm a rebel.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Not my capital letters. Maybe the NFHS's? Maybe mick's?

I pulled out my old rulebooks (printed on dead trees) to check it out.

2001-2002 POE Handchecking, Rough Play, Hands Off
Defenders are not permitted to have hands on the dribbler!
The measuring up of an opponent (tagging) is hand-checking, is not permitted, and is a FOUL.
Use of a forearm, regardless of the duration of the contact is A FOUL.
Hand-checking is not incidental contact.

The capital letters are not mick's. The capital letters, and the exclamation mark, were put there by the NFHS.

I'm pretty sure that the capital letters and exclamation mark were put there by the NFHS for a reason.

This Point of Emphasis, and the annual interpretation from the same year, makes the NFHS philosophy on handchecking pretty clear.

2001-2002 Interpretations Part 2 SITUATION 17: Al is slowly dribbling the ball up the court. Bl is lightly “tagging” Al, but is not impeding Al’s forward motion. The official warns Bl to “keep hands off.” RULING: This is a foul. There is no warning. (10-6-1)

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

[JRutledge]

Billy,

Are you confused what a handcheck is under the rules? Or are you arguing a point that no one is saying at this point? What does a POE have to do with a current rule that was written 10 years later?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What does a POE have to do with a current rule that was written 10 years later?

I'm saying that for, at least, the past twenty years, the NFHS has been trying to eliminate (with the exception of single, short-lived, hot stove touches) handchecking ("tagging").

Furthermore, the NFHS has taken the philosophy of advantage/disadvantage (the usual philosophy for almost all other types of fouls) and removed it from the handchecking equation, evolving to "automatic" handchecking fouls.

Also, a deep dive into the rulebook, Points of Emphasis, and interpretations tells us that this "automatic" handchecking foul philosophy wasn't anything brand new in 2012-13 or 2014-15, but can be traced back, at least, to 2001-2002.

Some older Forum members also believe that this may go further back, all the way back to their playing days way back in the 1960's, but that's, at best, only anecdotal evidence.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Or are you arguing a point that no one is saying at this point?

At least one Forum member believes that handchecking is open to interpretation under the usual NFHS philosophy of advantage/disadvantage.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... nothing was influencing the RSBQ in any way.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... did not influence the movement of the player. So I would likely pass on that until it affected the player.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... would like some RSBQ to be influenced. Like to see a little more of the player be affected ... want something to influence the play.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... something has to be influenced to even get a call ...

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... need to see some RSBQ be influenced.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

At least one Forum member believes that handchecking is open to interpretation under the usual NFHS philosophy of advantage/disadvantage.

Please don't make me go back and pull out quotes.

Pull out quotes all you like (even your own). But I think you are not having the discussion that was being had about the play. And no one said anything about what the NF said or did not say. We do not work for the NF and talk to them about how to call plays. The NF puts out rules they stand by and states or organizations tell you how to actually enforce a rule. The same reason we have people do not call 3 seconds or going out of bounds under their own volition without some understanding of what is expected. And in the video that was show, we hardly see what is happening with the ball handler and the defender. I do not call what something looks like I call what I see. In the video you cannot see this entire play. Ever heard of being stacked? Or did the NF not use the term so we cannot have it apart of this discussion? Or does IAABO use that term?

Peace