What would you tell this coach
 

A1 is dribbling up the court, B1 contacts A1 with the hand but the action does not re- direct or cause a hindrance in the offensive players normal movement. A1 beats the contact and passes off when he reaches half court. Team A's coach says, "ref we are getting hand checked every time down the court" I know we hear this all the time in almost every game we work. What would you tell this coach?

Nothing...

<!Nothing at all>

I agree I would say absolutely nothing. The only chance of me saying anything is if I am standing right next to the coach. It would be a very short conversation.

Peace

The first time B1 puts his hand on A1, I am going to say "hands off." The second time B1 puts his hand on A1 I am going to charge B1 with a common foul for hand checking.

With all due respect to the fact the B1's actions did not redirect or cause a hinderance in A1 movements, there is absolutely no reason for B1 to put his hand on A1. A1 is directly in front of B1. Why does B1 have to touch him? He does not need to touch him.

MTD, Sr.

:(
Why would you say "hands off" to the player? Why would you call a foul for handchecking when the actions are NOT illegal? With all due respect the fact is that this action does not violate 4-24-5 or 4-24-6. You might want to rethink this one.

I also looked at the POE from 2003-04 and this action doesn't meet those either.

Hey Nevada what would you say if the coach was right next to you. That happened to me in a game this weekend. I said coach, they are beating the contact and it's not causing a hindrance in the opponents movement. Correct if Im wrong in order for a foul to occur there has to be 3 things: Contact, the contact has to be illegal, the contact has to cause a hindrance in the opponents movement. I told the coach once the contact cause a hindrance in the movement I have a foul he looked at me and thought i was speaking a foreign language. He was like can my players do it. I was said as long as it doesn't cause a hindrance in the opponents movement. He looked at me and my partner said, as long there is no advantage gained. The coach later told his player that, its ok guys the refs are used tp calling the game a different way and we will probably never see it again. Is it me putting a college philosophy into the game or what? If they are playing through it I have nothing. Do you have any pointers or somethings I can say to a coach.

Tommy

The way the play is described, the hand contact sounds like a reactionary touch.....and did not affect the play.

If it starts to impede or is about to escalate, I'm dealing with it - "hands" and then a foul if necessary.

As much as coaches whine about supposed "handchecks" - one thing they all absolutely hate, without exception, is a ticky tack handcheck call.

Tommy,
The coach did not ask you a question. He made a statement. His statement was quite likely untrue. Coaches usually do that.
My best advice is to ignore statements, but answer questions while being as brief as possible.
Trying to explain the nuances of the rules to coaches is pointless. The majority of them don't care about the rules. They only want to get calls for their team. That is their job. Don't ever forget that.

Just call the game as you believe that it should be called and the players will adjust.

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. B1 has committed a hand checking foul. 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.

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.

I agree with others. If the coach isn't asking a direct question ignore it. If he does, tell him what you did. No advantage gained. Another thing to consider is when the contact occurred in the game. I like to go out and find a hand check early just to get them off each other.

Incidental contact.
If you don't like contact then go play tennis, or consider playing a different sport. Basketball is a contact sport, read rule 4-27. Basketball is not a collision sport.

Though the rule does not specificially say, I will not allow contact on the dribbler backcourt to frontcourt. No touching the offensive player bringing the ball up the court. This is a NBA rule that I agree with. Like MTD said, get this contact early and it really cleans the game up for you.

I thought by NFHS standards, mere contact does NOT constitute a foul. Are we all in agreement with this?
If I were standing beside coach & felt the need to reply, "No harm no foul sir".

I got nuttin'.

The general rule is, don't respond at all to statements, give a short neutral answer to a reasonable question. However, I find that occasionally, when a coach is making a statement in a way that could be addressed, a simple, "I hear you coach" or, "Thank you, coach" will back him or her off. It can help prevent the emotion from escalating. I'd do that in this case if the coach said it again.

The first touch I would yell hands and usually that solves the touchy-feely stuff!!!!

Maybe say nothing or if you feel it's time too then maybe, "no advantage coach."

Me too.<B>

:::::::::crickets::::::::::::

REALLY POOR advice imo. You should strive to call the game consistently for the entire length that is being played. What is a foul in the first minute should also be a foul in the final minute. What is acceptable in the last minute should be acceptable in the first minute.
To do otherwise is to unfairly penalize a player. If you call something soft early, you have now charged a player with one of his five fouls towards disqualification, and altered the way that this individual can play later. Perhaps he will even have to spend significant time on the bench because of your decision (maybe after picking up another foul).

Well...no, actually.

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

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.


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. <O:p></O:p>
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. <O:p></O:p>
6.When a player places both hands on an opposing player, it is a foul. <O:p></O:p>
7.When a player jabs a hand or forearm on an opponent, it is a foul.

Hand Checking
 

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.

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.

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

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.

Well actually the NFHS POE says yes, Dan.

From 2006-07 NFHS POE 5A.
... Officials must be consistent in the application of all rules, including:

• Contact – Contact that is not considered a foul early in the game should not be considered a foul late in the game simply because a team "wants" to foul. Conversely, contact that is deemed intentional late in the game should likewise be called intentional early in the game.

I wouldn't say that. Most coaches will blow up from this statement and then you have to give him a T and yeah!

Gee, how about POE 4A in the 2001-02 rule book? Did you forget to cite that one? It says:
- <i>"Defenders are <b>NOT</b> 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 </b>NOT</b> incidental contact; it gives a tremendous advantage to the person illegally using their hands."</i>

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.

Absolutely none? ;)

None absolutely.

Maybe....:p

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 :D , I'll let you answer that.