Been getting a lot of "?", a nice way to put it, about hand checking. So how many call it "by the book" hand on FOUL.. Give me some advice.

I alwasy call it when it prevents North/South movement. Hardly ever call it going East/West (unless it displaces). I asked this my first year of the more senior refs, and that's what they said.

I explain to the captains during the pregame meeting that I will give one warning about handchecking then it gets called every time after. Teh reason why I give the warning is because sometimes the captains fail to notify the rest of their team about it.

Any prolonged contact (more than just a "tag-up") or any displacement, regardless of direction. Except for the completely talentless freshman girl who has no chance of influencing the play, and doesn't even realize her hand is out there. For her, the call is only when the displacement is noticeable.

What part of the book says hand=foul?

I call it if it affects the offensive player.

I don't give warnings in the pre-game conference.

Amen. That means you never have to explain why you <b>didn't</b> call something that you warned 'em you'd be calling.

I do not know what by the book means either. The rules say and the POE have said that there has to be some affect on the dribbler. Simply touching is not a foul like many people think.

Peace

No one asked what yall don't do. I agree with all comments here that when the contact affects the Play or player by displacement or limits movement it gets called.

That is exactly what the question was. He wanted to know what we call. He wanted to know if we called hand checking it by the book or some other philosophy. That is paraphrasing, but that was the question.

Peace

"HAND CHECK"

Using it to slow/move your opponent. The main factor, calling it consistent through out the game with yourself and your partner(s).

ICBW, but I think there was an interpretation a few years back that said any touching of an opponent with a hand was supposed to be called as a foul.

Would be nice to see if that stance has since softened slightly.

I believe you're adding something that wasn't in any of the various POEs on handchecking. The POEs said that putting a hand on the <b>dribbler</b> was a foul. Putting a hand on an <b>opponent</b> without the ball <b>could</b> be a foul if some kind of advantage was gained. If no advantage was gained, it's just incidental contact. That's my understanding of the purpose and intent of this rule.

Rule 10-6-1 sez that contacting an opponent with your hand is legal if that contact is incidental to an attempt to play the ball also.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 14th, 2005 at 08:22 PM]

IMO, an Official's pre-game with team captains should only be about; sportsmanship, team colors, boundary's, direction of play, unusual floor conditions, and if possible or optional, a very brief summary of this years points of emphasis that pertain to the players (intentional fouls, free throws, sporting behavior(covered in sportsmanship)etc.

Hand checking is defined by the NCAA Rules as;

Men’s Hand-Checking Officiating Guidelines
Hand-checking by a player places an opponent at a disadvantage. It is a foul and must be called. In addition, hand-checking that is not curtailed can lead to rough play. To stop hand-checking, officials must address it at the beginning of the game, and fouls must be called consistently throughout the game.

Some guidelines for officials to use when officiating hand-checking:

1. When a defensive player keeps a hand or forearm on an opponent, it is a foul.
2. When a defensive player puts two hands on an opponent, it is a foul.
3. When a player continually jabs by extending his arms and placing a hand or forearm on an opponent, it is a foul.

You're absolutely right -- you really could be wrong. :)

I'm not even sure that's right, JR. I think the POE said that placing a hand on the dribbler and leaving it there was a foul. Or repeatedly "measuring up". I don't think merely touching the dribbler was mentioned as an automatic foul.

You are correct.

I'm sorry, I stopped paying attention somewhere around boundaries. Can I go back to warming up now? :D

When defending the post and the ball is elsewhere, I warn, "Keep your hands off." Out front, on the ball, no warning if it affects the dribbler.

Oh?

Can either of you tell me in what year's NFHS POEs I might find those statements? I can find the following in POEs going back to the 2000-01 rule book, but I can't seem to find anything anywhere remotely resembling your assertations above.

2001-02 NFHS Rule Book- POE 4A- <i>verbatim</i>- <b>"Defenders are not permitted to have hands on the DRIBBLER"</b>.

2002-03 NFHS Rule Book- POE 4A- <i>verbatim</i>- <b>"Defenders are not permitted to have hands on the DRIBBLER"</b>.

2003-03 NFHS Rule Book- POE2A5- <i>verbatim</i>- <b>"Regardless where it takes place on the floor, when a player CONTINUOUSLY places a hand on the OPPOSING PLAYER, it is a foul."</b>.

I await elucidation.

You have to read the entire thing.
 

In the 2002-2003 Rulebook says at the bottom of Letter A. Hand checking, "Principles involved in incidental contact (Rule 4-27) apply!"

In the 2003-2004 Rulebook there is a POE with hand checking. Under Letter A, #1 it says, "Any tactic using the hands, arms or body that allows a player on offense or defense to "control" (hold, impede, push, divert, slow, or prevent) the movement of an opposing player is a foul."

Then #4 says under says, "Any act or tactic of illegal use of hands, arms or body (offense or defense) that intentionally slows, prevents, impedes the progress or displaces an opposing player due to the contact, is a foul and must be called."

So it seems that in at least two rulebooks the NF was going out of their way to make it clear that a simple touch was not a foul. Hand checking is not defined as touching.

Peace

I remember a line from last year's discussion of this topic, and it went something like this:

If placing hands on the dribbler does not give the defender an distinct Advantage...then why would he do so?

Hmm -- is the definition of "foul" something like "the defender gets and advantage" or is it something like "hinders the opponent's normal offensive or defensive maneuvers?"

I'm listening, Mr. Jenkins.

I get your point.