2022-23 NFHS Basketball Rules Changes

[JRutledge]

I agree with the basic philosophy that handchecking is not incidental contact. But the problem is that many cannot identify what it is much of the time. Again we have people that think simply touching another player is just that. But the rule uses the word "placing" which to me is a much more active behavior than if someone comes to you and your hand touches them. This is why we get paid the big bucks. We have to decide if the behavior is enough to warrant a foul. And if I put my arm out and you blow right by me, do we need a foul there? So there is a little art to this when it often is sold as a science.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I agree with the basic philosophy that handchecking is not incidental contact. But the problem is that many cannot identify what it is much of the time. Again we have people that think simply touching another player is just that. But the rule uses the word "placing" which to me is a much more active behavior than if someone comes to you and your hand touches them. This is why we get paid the big bucks. We have to decide if the behavior is enough to warrant a foul. And if I put my arm out and you blow right by me, do we need a foul there? So there is a little art to this when it often is sold as a science.

Peace

You can disagree with whether it is necessary or not, but the above is precisely the thinking they were trying to get rid of with the change. They were very clear that they do not want you trying to decide if it is an advantage or not. If a player touches another player with his/her hand in one of the forms described, it is a handchecking foul. It is an advantage by definition in the case of handchecking.

Yet, there continues to be large resistance to this change.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Curious. No modern rule set allows hand checking.

Back to the topic of hand checking, some boards in my area are stricter than others, but I have noticed that it is consistently called. Two hands? We call it. Repeated hot stove touches? I call it. Re-route? If I see it, I call it.

From what I hear, it is not consistently adjudicated in the Catholic League.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You can disagree with whether it is necessary or not, but the above is precisely the thinking they were trying to get rid of with the change. They were very clear that they do not want you trying to decide if it is an advantage or not. If a player touches another player with his/her hand in one of the forms described, it is a handchecking foul. It is an advantage by definition in the case of handchecking.

Yet, there continues to be large resistance to this change.

Who is trying to get rid of what exactly? I ask because I hear this but I consistently call way more handchecks (partially the philosophy of college officiating as well). So I call them a lot, but I also use some common sense. Not every touch needs to be called when the player is moving and nothing happens. Also, RSBQ is my standard as well and the one the state I work in uses as well if we have a determining factor. This has been stated in our literature multiple times.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Who is trying to get rid of what exactly? I ask because I hear this but I consistently call way more handchecks (partially the philosophy of college officiating as well). So I call them a lot, but I also use some common sense. Not every touch needs to be called when the player is moving and nothing happens. Also, RSBQ is my standard as well and the one the state I work in uses as well if we have a determining factor. This has been stated in our literature multiple times.

Peace

I also called way more hand-checks than other HS officials. And it was b/c of my college training. Even at the JuCo level, there was such an obvious difference from what was routinely allowed at the HS level. Overall, college coaches and players know they can't put their hands and other body parts all over the ballhandlers. College players are coached to move their feet and to beat the offensive player to the spot they're trying to get to. When I had to call illegal contact to the ballhandler in college game it was often quite obvious b/c it would stand out from what defenders were usually doing.

[ilyazhito]

Is there a reason why HS officials routinely allow more contact to the ballhandler/dribbler than college officials?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Is there a reason why HS officials routinely allow more contact to the ballhandler/dribbler than college officials?

Simple. Training. (By all involved).

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Simple. Training. (By all involved).

Peace

And acceptance by coaches. And getting coaches to complain if you don't call it instead of complaining when you do.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Is there a reason why HS officials routinely allow more contact to the ballhandler/dribbler than college officials?

Because of an old mentality that insists that touches of/by the hand/arm are not an advantage if it doesn't knock a player off balance. That thinking persists and is still pushed and taught in some locales as the way to call things despite the NFHS pleading for officials to leave that thinking behind.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Is there a reason why HS officials routinely allow more contact to the ballhandler/dribbler than college officials?

Because there is such a shortage of HS officials that there’s no accountability for them when they swallow the whistle.

Whereas at the college level it is very simple to just scratch a camper off the list when they don’t call 10-1.4 fouls.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Because there is such a shortage of HS officials that there’s no accountability for them when they swallow the whistle.

Whereas at the college level it is very simple to just scratch a camper off the list when they don’t call 10-1.4 fouls.

Even with that fact, they could still put out videos to highlight what they want and what is not acceptable. You telling me someone could not come up with a video every year with an example of new rules or especially the POEs? They could do that. I get they claim to not have all the resources, but they do not have to make a video out of thin air, work with your state associations to get video example. At least we could have a video reference. Right now we have words that seem to be debated what they mean. The NCAA puts out multiple videos showing why we should call certain things and shows what would not apply. And if they need help, lean on RefQuest or their team or someone that does this regularly (even IAABO). But to do nothing and say we are not calling the game properly is not cutting anymore. We are in a whole different era.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Even with that fact, they could still put out videos to highlight what they want and what is not acceptable. You telling me someone could not come up with a video every year with an example of new rules or especially the POEs? They could do that. I get they claim to not have all the resources, but they do not have to make a video out of thin air, work with your state associations to get video example. At least we could have a video reference. Right now we have words that seem to be debated what they mean. The NCAA puts out multiple videos showing why we should call certain things and shows what would not apply. And if they need help, lean on RefQuest or their team or someone that does this regularly (even IAABO). But to do nothing and say we are not calling the game properly is not cutting anymore. We are in a whole different era.

Peace

You can pull out the video all you want but when you have many officials that like the game the old way and choose to call it the old way regardless of what is being asked, there isn't all that much you can do when you don't have the numbers to just not use them.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You can pull out the video all you want but when you have many officials that like the game the old way and choose to call it the old way regardless of what is being asked, there isn't all that much you can do when you don't have the numbers to just not use them.

It is not about an old way of thinking. There are officials that have been officiating after this rule was added, changed or written into the rulebooks. Again, if all you do is put this rule out there and give no context, we will have this as an issue. Again, I am old school enough to know the difference. And I know when to call this because I have been trained on it with video. Just like recognizing flops based on the numerous videos and breakdown of videos to spot them and officiating accordingly. IJS.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You can disagree with whether it is necessary or not, but the above is precisely the thinking they were trying to get rid of with the change. They were very clear that they do not want you trying to decide if it is an advantage or not. If a player touches another player with his/her hand in one of the forms described, it is a handchecking foul. It is an advantage by definition in the case of handchecking.

Yet, there continues to be large resistance to this change.

Completely agree. And at the HS level, absent taking away postseason assignments there really is not much you can do about the old guys who still subscribe to the old way of thinking.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

... not much you can do about the old guys who still subscribe to the old way of thinking.

Hey. I'm one of those old guys, but I (and my interpreter, and my assigner (also old)) subscribe to 10-7-12 as written, while still using 4-27 for almost all other types of fouls, while also knowing that single, momentary "hot stove" touch with one hand is legal. However, I will admit that I will occasionally give a, "Hands off", warning early in the game before calling my first 10-7-12 handchecking "touch" foul. Old habits die hard.