Fun With Arm Bars ...

[BillyMac]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And it appears nothing was influencing the RSBQ in any way. So I guess technically if there is touching yes this is a foul ...

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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 ...

[JRutledge]

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

[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.

[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 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 ...

[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

[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

[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