Fun With Arm Bars ...

[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

[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.