Fun With Arm Bars ...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Pretty much word for word.



And I agree 100% with your interpretation.

The term I used was "hot stove." Described differently than the rule.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The term I used was "hot stove."

And so did I.

One touches a hot stove and one immediately withdrawals one's hand because it burns one's hand and is painful.

And one doesn't touch the hot stove a second time because one learns from one's first mistake.

That exactly what the rule tells us is allowed and not allowed.

One single "hot stove" handcheck touch is legal (if it isn't illegal, it's legal).
Curiosity causes one to touch a hot stove.

And one can't "keep ... a hand on the player".
Because one's hand is burned and it's painful.

A "more than once" second hot stove touch is illegal handchecking.
One learns from a past mistake and doesn't want to get burned again.

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 JRutledge

Described differently than the rule.

How is it described differently than the rule?

And I agree 100% with JRutledge's hot stove interpretation ("allowed one touch of the ball handler and then have to remove that arm immediately and it not be a foul").

[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.

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

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 ...

There's no "Rome, AK," and I'll probably get excoriated for saying so, but you could move this game (seamlessly, I might add) from the Red Lake (PA) Patriots gymnasium up to the North Pole (AK) Patriots gymnasium, our association members would call a 'hand-check' foul at the second, or at the latest, the third arm bar.

The coaches and players here have adjusted well to the '12-13 POE and the '14-15 rule change. There's so few of us working games in the Interior which actually helps us being consistent to with whatever "thing" we're trying to deal with.

[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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Pull out quotes all you like

Too late, I already did.

Everyone here on the Forum understands that one's "local" philosophy is the most important philosophy, it's what gets one assignments, promotions, and leadership positions.

But this is not a "local" Forum. What's correct in Illinois, or Indiana, may be incorrect, or correct, in Connecticut, Virginia, Alaska, Missouri, Nevada, California, Oregon, Wisconsin, Ohio, Maryland, etc.

The one unifying philosophy all high school Forum members share is the NFHS.

It's certainly alright (more than alright, it's great) to have one's own "local" philosophy, it's how one locally moves up the ladder and stays on top, but one shouldn't try to use that "local" philosophy as a "correct" philosophy on the Forum when the NFHS clearly indicates otherwise, because it's only "correct" locally and should only be described as such (only locally correct). That doesn't mean that it's not important, and that it lacks value, but rather, that it is only important locally and only has value locally.

And a "local" philosophy doesn't have to be defended by "stretching" NFHS rule language (and it's alright to locally ignore NFHS rule language), it is what it is, "local", and needs no defending, maybe it's a better philosophy, maybe it's a poorer philosophy, or maybe it's just simply different, something that works really well for the officials in that "local" area. It is what it is, nothing more, nothing less.

No need to try to convince everyone on the Forum that it's the one true correct philosophy. Few things not "kosher" according to the NFHS will be "universal".

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... in the video that was show, we hardly see what is happening with the ball handler and the defender.

If one clearly doesn't see any contact in the video, then it's 100% fine to defend a no call, but don't start talking about about rhythm, speed, balance, and quickness. These conditions are not relevant to NFHS handchecking decision. No contact means no foul. Throwing rhythm, speed, balance, and quickness into the equation opens up an advantage/disadvantage philosophy, a philosophy that doesn't match NFHS handchecking teachings over, at least, the past twenty years, a philosophy that says that any handchecking contact (short of a single, short-lived, hot stove touch) is an "automatic" foul.

No contact, no foul. Can't see contact, no foul. Handcheck contact (short of a single, short-lived, hot stove touch), "automatic" foul.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Ever heard of being stacked? ... Or does IAABO use that term?

We call it "straight-lined".

If you can't see it, then you can't call it.

And one can't "move to improve" in a video.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We call it "straight-lined".

If you can't see it, then you can't call it.

And one can't "move to improve" in a video.

Well but when reviewing video you have to be able to decide what should take place without any other angle. This video much of the "contact" was not seen.

Peace