Why do I get the feeling Nate was a player turned official?

A player who took a lot of shots.;)

Sometimes that hand check is an attempt to steer the ball handler into a trap. IMO, if you get handchecks early in the game, they tend to disappear as the players realize that won't fly tonight. With all contact, you gotta decide advantage/disadvantage. That can be tough but I love nothing more that watching D spend his energy trying to handcheck A rather that defending with his feet. Now he's out of position and A is blowing by him for layups.

LOL..Is it that obvious? Subjectivity that all....

Very true. My point was that the hand check isnt called as often as we as officals see it or as often as it occurs. Same with small bumps and brushes.

My point is that <b>you</b> stated that someone is gaining an <b>advantage</b> by contact. If gaining an advantage by contact <b>isn't</b> a foul, then what is? How do you determine what a foul is or isn't if you're <b>not</b> using advantage/disadvantage as a criteria? If you are going strictly by the severity of the contact, I disagree completely with your philosophy.

Btw, maybe you can explain your "hand-checking" philosophy to me also. It seems to be somewhat different than the the FED instructions to officials in POE 2A issued in the 2003/04 rule book. In those instructions, the exact quote was "Regardless of where it takes place on the floor, when a player continuously places a hand on the opposing player, it's a foul". It also says "when a player places both hands on a player, it's a foul". Severity of contact is not supposed to be a criteria in either of those cases, according to the rulesmakers. Maybe I've been interpreting those POE's wrong, but I always thought that the NFHS was also telling us to use advantage/disadvantage on the other handchecking examples mentioned also, as per the rest of that POE. Thoughts?

This has become an issue of someone being right and someone being wrong now. I didnt mean to try to prove anyone wrong or insult anyones intelligance when I posted. Just stated my opinon. This is what I will stop with. You are exactly right, as I said before. However, just like in football, where the rules states that a defender may not make contact beyond the initial 5yrd. Does it happen? Yes. Does it ever get flagged. Yes. Does it draw a flag 80% of the time....uhhh maybe. Hand check is the same way. You used the word continuous, in your explanation. Does that mean that if I use it only when I need to that its okay? A hand check is a hand check is a hand check. It's a foul every time it happens, according to the book. Do you call it everytime you see it? I hope you do and if you do then your a great official of the book.

Severity to me determines everything. IMO, in any brush or bump someone gains an advantage. That's the idea of the game. A post player wants to maintain contact with a defender in order to "feel him," to determine where he is going. This contact results in the offensive player gaining an advantage..yet he hasnt used his hand to hold. But he did use contact or bumping to gain that position. Is this a foul? By the book...yes. Called in most games. No.

No insults intended, but the situation you initially described is a foul. Backing into a player to get their weight on their heels so that you have space to operate has to be called. The offensive player has gained a clear advantage.

Handchecks are a different story. Does a quick touch give the player an advantage? You'd have to see it to judge it.

None taken. I am assuming since you think that is a foul, no matter of severity, then that a post player backing down a defender is a foul also? Contact is made, 99% percent of the time in the post with either the offence or defense gaining an advantage. In order to get position in the post contact must be made, right? And someone gains an advantage, right?

If an offensive player has the ball and he attempts to drive to the basket, in an effort to stop the drive the defender steps infront, legally, and the two bump together, is this a foul? If the contact, which doesnt necessarily have to be intentional, creates space and the offensive player shoots....Foul? I say not necessarily. I think it depends on: #1 the official #2 Severity #3Intention. If the offensive player leans into cause the contact then, foul.

nate
 

i do agree with you -- and that is why whenever a post player posts up and backs down a defender we ALWAYS see a player control foul. Guys stop being so literal -- sometimes I wonder if you guys actually officiate the same way you type.

I would like to see more hand checks being called when a player is driving to the basket -- or even lets start calling the 3 second call exactly on the 3 count -- maybe even T'ing up a coach as soon as he steps out of his box -- how about all the contact on rebounds -- because all that contact has to have a foul in it.

some rules of basketball dont have citations.

I'm not so sure that it's right/wrong -- but as an official, you do need to keep changing and improving. And this may be something that you'll need to work on this season. The danger isn't calling too much , it's calling too little. When you say that every bump and brush gives an advantage, I think you're using the words in ways that don't give us the same picture you're trying to portray. The contact, and the severity of the contact, aren't the point. The question is, was the advantage gained by illegal means? Was the disadvantage that the player gave to the opponent given illegally?

Suppose a dribbler is moving up the floor, and a defender sidles up along side and achieves and then maintains LGP. Now the dribbler may continue in her path, even if that means that she and the defender are actually touching, and the defender can continue in HER path even with slight contact. But, if the dribbler wants to turn, and can't because the defender is in the way, even slightly more contact by the dribbler in turning will be illegal, and thus a foul, if it moves the defender even one inch out of the path of keeping the dribbler from turning.

It won't always get called, because most refs will wait another breath or two to see if the dribbler keeps turning, or backs off. But if there's any displacement of the defender, there's a foul, and it should be called. It may not be severe at all, but if it gives an illegal advantage, then whistle it.

Re: nate
 

I'm not sure where you see this call ALWAYS being made, but when A1 backs B1 down on the post the only possible call IS a PC.

Re: nate
 

What your saying is what I have been trying to say for about 10 posts. Thanks. I agree, I think to many officials officiate by the book. It's impossible to do. If you call every foul that occurs then players wont play, they will shoot free throws all game. When I replied to the orginal post I stated that the rules say it's a foul, however I think its subjective. The answer I got was that someone gained an advantage from the contact; therefore, its a foul. Everyone gains an advantage from any type of contact. If we as refs are going to call the game by the book then we leave no room for subjectivity. So as Deecee states, as soon as the coach steps out of the box "T" him up. Or jockeying for positon under the glass should be a double foul. Maybe I am completely wrong.

Re: Re: nate
 

Hey Nate, here's where you are wrong - just because an official disagrees with you does not make them a rules book official.

Here's where else you are wrong - if the players do not or can not adjust to how the game is being called then there is nothing at all wrong with shooting free throws all game. If you aint ready to make the calls that need to be made then maybe you aint ready to referee the game.

Re: Re: nate
 

I give up, guys.

Neither of you understand what I've been trying to explain.

Call what you want. Sorry I wasted your time. I'm sorry that I wasted mine too.

see on here you get
 

most everyone wants to be -- and maybe has to be -- right so they say things that they are 100% right on and is supported in the rules book -- everything else, even if thats how they ref, they wont mention because subjectivity is not part of the rulebook but unfortunatly its part of the game.