Fun With Arm Bars ...
 

IAABO Make The Call Video

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...J4vivTJh4D.mp4

Is this a foul for handchecking? Observe the play and make a ruling as to whether, or not, the player (Red #. 4) commits a handchecking foul.

Two choices: This is a handchecking foul. This is not a handchecking foul.

My comment: This is a handchecking foul. Three separate extended arm bars (including switching arms) committed by Red #4 against ball handler White #0 over a period of about five seconds constitute a handchecking foul. This has to be cleaned up.

I would like a look from another angle. And it appears nothing was influencing the RSBQ in any way. So I guess technically if there is touching yes this is a foul, but I would not be in love with these if he was able to move freely.

Peace

Clean Up Illegal Contact On Ballhandlers ...
 

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.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Y...=0&w=300&h=300

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

Handchecking ...
 

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 ...

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

Hard To Believe ...
 

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

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.

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.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.G...=0&w=227&h=162

Again, when in Rome ...

Leadership ...
 

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)

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.

I agree.

And the funny thing about those that don't want to call it because they think they'll be calling it all day....call a few and the defenders just stop doing it. There is a small adjustment period but after that you end up with no more fouls than before.

Adjustments...
 

I think that one may actually end up with a fewer fouls to call.

Coaches and players have to adjust, there really isn't an alternative, other than star players and other starters sitting on benches in foul trouble, lots of player disqualifications, lots of free throws being attempted, and visiting coaches being forced to sit on cold buses in snowy parking lots.

Clean Up On Aisle Three ...
 

Two minutes into the first period, star guard is called for a "touch" handcheck after placing two hands on the ballhandler for a few seconds. He, and his teammates that saw the foul think, "We're not getting way with those tonight". His opponents that saw the foul think, "We're not getting way with those tonight". Both coaches think, "We're not getting way with those tonight. As long as they call these both ways".

Of course, we occasionally come across a few knucklehead players and a few knucklehead coaches who really aren't very bright and who will fail to adjust and find themselves sitting long stretches, or the rest of the game, on the team bench; or on a bench in the locker room, or on a seat on a cold bus in a snowy parking lot.

For The Greater Good Of The Cause ...
 

10-7-12: The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a ball handler/dribbler. A player becomes a ball handler when he/she receives the ball. This would include a player in a post position.
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.

10.7.12 SITUATION A: A1 is dribbling in the frontcourt and B1 (a) places two hands on the dribbler; (b) places an extended arm bar on the dribbler; (c) places and keeps a hand on the dribbler; (d) contacts the dribbler more than once with the same hand or alternating hands. RULING: Illegal in all cases. A personal foul shall be ruled any time this type of contact occurs on a player holding or dribbling the ball. (10-6-12)

2014-15 NFHS Basketball Rules Changes
In an effort to eliminate excessive contact on ball-handlers and dribblers outside of the lane area, the committee added Article 12 to Rule 10-6 on contact. As a result, the following acts will constitute a foul when committed against a ball-handler/dribbler: 1) placing two hands on the player, 2) placing an extended arm bar on the player, 3) placing and keeping a hand on the player and 4) contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands. Rationale: Rather than continuing to make hand-checking a point of emphasis year after year, simply add a brand new rule that requires a personal foul be called any time this type of contact occurs on a player holding or dribbling the ball outside of the lane area. The NFHS game needs this type of illegal contact on the perimeter ball handlers and dribblers eliminated.

2012-13 Points Of Emphasis
Examples of illegal contact are: Hand checking. Any tactic using hands or arms that allows a player on offense or defense to control the movement of an opposing player.
Examples of hand checking foul.
1. Both hands on an opposing player
2. Jabbing a hand or forearm on an opponent.
3. Continuous contact by a hand or forearm on an opponent

Also, at various times in the past:
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.

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

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.

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

Zero Tolerance ...
 

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".

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.

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

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

Arm Bar ...
 

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

Priority ...
 

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 ...

Slow Hand (The Pointer Sisters, 1981) ...
 

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

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

Hot Stove Touch ...
 

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 ...

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.

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

All Night Long (Lionel Richie, 1983) ...
 

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.

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.

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

Peace

Example ...
 

Pretty much word for word.

And I agree 100% with JRutledge's interpretation.

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

Peace

Hot Stove Touch ...
 

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.

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").

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

I Did Find A Nice Image ...
 

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.

Oh, The Humanity ...
 

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.

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

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.d...=0&w=207&h=167

Hands Off ...
 

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

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.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...7s_a_rebel.jpg

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.

Capital Letters, Exclamation Marks ...
 

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 ...

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

Long Lived NFHS Philosophy ...
 

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.

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

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

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

Local Philosophy ...
 

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 ...

No Clear Look ...
 

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 ...

Straight-Lined ...
 

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

Agree To Disagree ...
 

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.

No, we are screened from the action of the defender most of the video. That does not mean there is no contact.

But again I keep remember I have having this conversation with an official that has never gone to camp, does not train officials and has never worked post season in their jurisdiction.

So I cannot argue is right. ;)

Peace

Slings And Arrows ...
 

Been to dozens of camps, local, state, and regional, all high school, no college. Never a trainer at a camp.

Been on three training committees, once for rules, twice for mechanics, currently serving on the mechanics training committee.

Lots of post season games, conference (league) post season games, including one conference championship final. No state tournament games.

Apology, or more insults? JRutledge can decide which way to go, or to do nothing.

Don't Guess ...
 

Agree. It's basketball. There is always contact. It's a contact sport.

If one is screened (straight-lined, stacked), and doesn't observe contact, then one can only rule that there was no contact. Don't guess.

I only commented on the contact that I actually saw, not on what I didn't see, no guessing to fill in the blanks.

I didn't guess on the third contact, I saw contact, but it was the least obvious of all the contact that I observed upon further review.

Choices ...
 

If one believes that there was only the first contact, then deciding if it was a legal single short-lived hot stove touch (rather than an arm bar) contact depends on the duration of contact, and may involve rhythm, speed, balance, quickness, advantage, or disadvantage.

My opinion. Three (multiple) separate extended arm bar contacts (only a single (one) arm bar would have met the rule parameter for an "automatic" foul). No need to discuss single short-lived hot stove touches, duration of such, or rhythm, speed, balance, quickness, advantage, or disadvantage, per NFHS philosophy.

It is all about angles.
 

https://eatliver.b-cdn.net/wp-conten...4/flip-off.jpg

It is all about angles.

Peace

A Picture Is Worth ...
 

Nice meme. Should be used in all training for basketball officials.

Classic straight-line.

“A picture is worth a thousand words” (Henrik Ibsen, Norwegian playwright, 1828-1906)

IAABO Survey Says …
 

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...J4vivTJh4D.mp4

IAABO Play Commentary Correct Answer: This is a handchecking foul.

As the player receives the ball, the defender places his left hand on the ball handler. As the offensive player begins to dribble, the defender extends an arm bar into the dribbler's torso. When the dribbler changes directions, the defender then places his right hand on the dribbler's torso.

This contact committed by the defender on the ball handler is clearly illegal, and a foul should have been ruled as soon as the arm bar was extended into the torso of the dibbler. Nearly 85% of respondents were correct to deem this contact illegal and assess a foul to the defender on this play.

For the 15% of respondents who ruled this contact incidental, many commented that the dribbler's freedom of movement was not inhibited, so the contact should be incidental. When it comes to contact on a ball-handler, this approach is not supported by rule 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 armbar 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.

In these four instances, the rules are telling officials that the contact is inhibiting the ball handler, and a foul must be ruled. In recent years, officials at all levels have made great strides in enforcing these rules. Keep the defender's hands off ball handlers should be a priority for officials every time they step on the court to officiate the game.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a handchecking foul 85% (including me). This is not a handchecking foul 15%.

Multiple touches with extended hand/arm. Arm/hand placement can act as a lever to guide or angle offensive player (no evidence of that from this angle). Hand/arm placement on body is limiting ability for offensive player to access both hands easily (using illegal contact to limit movement). At one point on the second change of direction hand fighting occurs which is clearly initiated by the defense.

I know a number of colleagues and coaches who would kill this call as being "Soft" or an " interrupter" but this is hand checking call all night every night.

Proliferation Of Video ...
 

It seems that my local board used the term "interrupter" (in regard to many calls, not just limited to handchecks) at almost every meeting between forty years ago and twenty years ago, but for the past twenty years, especially the past ten years, we seldom, if ever, hear the term.

Wonder if it has anything to do with the proliferation of video? Every player's grandmother in the bleachers has a high definition video camera in her cell phone these days, and she's not afraid to use it.

I no longer make "close" out of bounds calls based on who "should" get the ball. Now, if it's a foul, I call the foul. Contact isn't a foul, I don't call the foul. If it barely goes off a player's fingertips, I give the ball to the other team. No more thinking to myself, "There was a little contact there, I'll give the ball to the player who was contacted. Two happy coaches. One because his player didn't pick up a foul. One because his team got the ball".

No more. Those days are long gone.