What would you tell this coach

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

NevadaRef:

The question I pose to you and everybody is why does B1 need to put his hands on A1. A1 is dribbling the ball right in front of him. There is no reason for B1 to put his hands on A1.

He doesn't need to have a reason. The rules permit him to do this and that is enough.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

B1 has committed a hand checking foul.

Not according to the rules! I challenge you to find a rule that this player broke.
According to the OP this is the action: "B1 contacts A1 with the hand but the action does not re- direct or cause a hindrance in the offensive players normal movement."

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

If you nip this kind of illegal contact early on in the game, then you decrease the chance for rougher illegal contact later in the game.

Illegal contact and rough play should be penalized at any time during the game. It does stop potential problems later, if the officials properly penalize it when it occurs early. However, the contact described by the OP is NOT illegal and if you are penalizing this just because it is early in the game, then you are overofficiating and unfairly penalizing the participant.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am going to hate myself for what I about to say, but I am "old school" about this kind of contact. There is no reason for it. It has always been illegal, but over the years officials have allowed this type of contact to go unpenalized and hence play becomes rougher and rougher.

MTD, Sr.

You have been officiating a lot longer than I have, so I'll grant you this point on the evolution of the game. However, I have to disagree that this kind of contact is currently illegal. There may be more physical contact today which is allowed, but that is not our debate. This specific play--putting a hand on someone once and not inhibiting his movement--is NOT prohibited by the rules.

(Your best argument for this being a foul has to come from either number 5 or 7 under the POE, but neither seems to apply perfectly to this situation.)

RULE 4
SECTION 24 HANDS AND ARMS, LEGAL AND ILLEGAL USE
...
ART. 5 . . . It is not legal to use hands on an opponent which in any way inhibits the freedom of movement of the opponent or acts as an aid to a player in starting or stopping.
ART. 6 . . . It is not legal to extend the arms fully or partially in a position other than vertical so that the freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the arms occurs. ...

2003-04 NFHS POE #2

A. Handchecking:

1.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.
...
4.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. >>
5.Regardless of where it takes place on the floor, when a player continuously places a hand on the opposing player, it is a foul. >>
6.When a player places both hands on an opposing player, it is a foul. >>
7.When a player jabs a hand or forearm on an opponent, it is a foul.

[BillyMac]

Ball-Handler / Hand-Checking
Two hands on the ball-handler is a foul. Automatic.
One hand that stays on the dribbler is a foul.
Remember RSBQ. If the dribbler’s Rhythm, Speed, Balance, or Quickness are affected, we should have a hand-checking foul.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

NevadaRef:

My question still stands: Why does B1 need to put his hand on A1? Defenders should be taught and are taught to play defense with their feet not their hands.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

NevadaRef:

My question still stands: Why does B1 need to put his hand on A1? Defenders should be taught and are taught to play defense with their feet not their hands.

MTD, Sr.

Your question falls flat on its face.

Players do many things during a game which they do not NEED to do, but are allowed to do. What you think of their actions doesn't matter. What I think of their actions doesn't matter. What the NFHS rules book permits or prohibits them to do is all that matters. Call it according to the rules, not by a personal philosophy.

2006-07 NFHS POE

5A. Rules Enforcement. Officials need to be aware that personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risks to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as written negatively impact the basic fundamentals and tenants of the rules.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Ball-Handler / Hand-Checking
Two hands on the ball-handler is a foul. Automatic.
One hand that stays on the dribbler is a foul.
Remember RSBQ. If the dribbler’s Rhythm, Speed, Balance, or Quickness are affected, we should have a hand-checking foul.

I would disagree with your point saying that it is "automatic." It might be likely, but if a player blows by a player that tries to hold them up, I might just let it go. There are times when a defender tries to hand check dribblers only for that dribbler to beat them to the basket for an easy lay-up.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Not according to the rules! I challenge you to find a rule that this player broke.
According to the OP this is the action: "B1 contacts A1 with the hand but the action does not re- direct or cause a hindrance in the offensive players normal movement."

Illegal contact and rough play should be penalized at any time during the game. It does stop potential problems later, if the officials properly penalize it when it occurs early. However, the contact described by the OP is NOT illegal and if you are penalizing this just because it is early in the game, then you are overofficiating and unfairly penalizing the participant.

However, I have to disagree that this kind of contact is currently illegal. There may be more physical contact today which is allowed, but that is not our debate. This specific play--putting a hand on someone once and not inhibiting his movement--is NOT prohibited by the rules.

(Your best argument for this being a foul has to come from either number 5 or 7 under the POE, but neither seems to apply perfectly to this situation.)

RULE 4
SECTION 24 HANDS AND ARMS, LEGAL AND ILLEGAL USE
...
ART. 5 . . . It is not legal to use hands on an opponent which in any way inhibits the freedom of movement of the opponent or acts as an aid to a player in starting or stopping.
ART. 6 . . . It is not legal to extend the arms fully or partially in a position other than vertical so that the freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the arms occurs. ...

2003-04 NFHS POE #2

A. Handchecking:

1.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.
...
4.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. >>
5.Regardless of where it takes place on the floor, when a player continuously places a hand on the opposing player, it is a foul. >>
6.When a player places both hands on an opposing player, it is a foul. >>
7.When a player jabs a hand or forearm on an opponent, it is a foul.

Gee, how about POE 4A in the 2001-02 rule book? Did you forget to cite that one? It says:
- "Defenders are NOT permitted to have hands on the dribbler."
-"The measuring up of an opponent(tagging) IS hand-checking, is NOT permitted, and is a FOUL."
-"Hand checking is NOT incidental contact; it gives a tremendous advantage to the person illegally using their hands."

Amazing, eh? The FED says that hand-checking is NOT incidental contact. They also say that just putting a hand on an opponent and then taking it right off(otherwise defined as "tagging") IS a foul. And they repeated those statements word-for-word in the next year's rule book too.

You can always find something somewhere in the rules to back up any goofy thesis if you try hard enough. Common sense seems to work better in my experience. Unfortunately, imo common sense seems to come with age and experience--something that you're never going to attain before your retirement from officiating.

Fwiw btw, I agree with Rut. There are no absolutes.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

There are no absolutes.

Absolutely none?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Absolutely none?

None absolutely.

Maybe....

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Gee, how about POE 4A in the 2001-02 rule book? Did you forget to cite that one? It says:
- "Defenders are NOT permitted to have hands on the dribbler."
-"The measuring up of an opponent(tagging) IS hand-checking, is NOT permitted, and is a FOUL."
-"Hand checking is NOT incidental contact; it gives a tremendous advantage to the person illegally using their hands."

Amazing, eh? The FED says that hand-checking is NOT incidental contact. They also say that just putting a hand on an opponent and then taking it right off(otherwise defined as "tagging") IS a foul. And they repeated those statements word-for-word in the next year's rule book too.

You can always find something somewhere in the rules to back up any goofy thesis if you try hard enough. Common sense seems to work better in my experience. Unfortunately, imo common sense seems to come with age and experience--something that you're never going to attain before your retirement from officiating.

Fwiw btw, I agree with Rut. There are no absolutes.

This is part of the issue that MTD brought up with the evolution of the game and allowing more contact. Did the NFHS supercede the 2001-02 POE with printing of the 2003-04 POE? Is this contact CURRENTLY illegal or was it only illegal back then?

Since you have so much experience , I'll let you answer that.