Fresh From Camp Tidbits....

[Camron Rust]

The hand check signal is completely redundant. Every single foul that can be deemed a hand check could also be a hold, push, or illegal use of hands. The signal was only added a few years ago...with no new fouling action being defined...just a new formalized name to what was already a foul that had a signal.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The hand check signal is completely redundant. Every single foul that can be deemed a hand check could also be a hold, push, or illegal use of hands. The signal was only added a few years ago...with no new fouling action being defined...just a new formalized name to what was already a foul that had a signal.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but on the basis you are putting forth we could even eliminate the push, hold, IUoH and block signals, along with the handcheck and just show the fist at the table. After all, it's the fact that it's a foul rather than a violation, that's important.

I'm with Engemann, signals are about communicating. If the thing that's most needed in today's game is communicating with coaches, working with coaches, managing coaches, and thereby the game, then why not rethink our approach to signalling? Coaches, players and fans don't know the rules well, and they surely don't think in terms of exactly which rule was violated when a foul was committed. They think much more in terms of "that's a foul" and "that's not a foul." Their distinguishing criteria is not derived directly from the book. So why do we signal as if it is?

Would it be more effective if our signals more closely matched the actual act that caused the foul? The handcheck, IMHO, communicates the nature of the foul very well. There are certainly others we could add that would aid in that communication. Didn't the NCAA women add some new signals a few years back (like hit to the head)?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I'm not saying you're wrong, but on the basis you are putting forth we could even eliminate the push, hold, IUoH and block signals, along with the handcheck and just show the fist at the table. After all, it's the fact that it's a foul rather than a violation, that's important.

I'm with Engemann, signals are about communicating. If the thing that's most needed in today's game is communicating with coaches, working with coaches, managing coaches, and thereby the game, then why not rethink our approach to signalling? Coaches, players and fans don't know the rules well, and they surely don't think in terms of exactly which rule was violated when a foul was committed. They think much more in terms of "that's a foul" and "that's not a foul." Their distinguishing criteria is not derived directly from the book. So why do we signal as if it is?

Would it be more effective if our signals more closely matched the actual act that caused the foul? The handcheck, IMHO, communicates the nature of the foul very well. There are certainly others we could add that would aid in that communication. Didn't the NCAA women add some new signals a few years back (like hit to the head)?

I agree with you entirely. I only intended to reinforce the point that handcheck with or without the name or signal is and always has been a foul and that, previously, it just fell under one of 3 (hold, push, IUoH) of the other 4 fouls (but not block). A handchecking foul was added not to address a new form of contact but to emphasize an already illegal form of contact that was too often getting ignored. I don't believe that the primary reason for adding was for improving communication.