Why are we still using old POEs as if they mean a whole lot right now? If that is the NF current interpretation, why is there no mention of this in the current rulebook? If you read at 10-6 there is no mention of that type of foul. And the NF reconstructed Rule 10-6 to be clearer on what type of actions are fouls. No mention of "two hand on the dribbler" is a foul. And the old stand-by 4-27 has not changed. You are right that might have been what some might want called, but POEs are also philosophies as well as rules issues they would like to be addressed.

I will stand by what I said. Two hands on a dribbler is not going to be called "automatic" foul from me unless there is a created advantage by the defender.

Peace

Technically, Isn't handchecking a push?

I technically agree. :D

Peace

I suppose, technically, it would either be a hold or a charge or a block, as "push" isn't a definitional foul, either. (4-7, 4-26)

Not necessarily. First LHSAA rules clinic I ever attended, I believe handchecking may have been a POE for NFHS that year, and it definitely was that night. It was emphasized that a defender was not allowed to use contact to measure his opponent. Displacement, holding, pushing, excessive anything was not necessary, but the mere fact of the contact, it was stated, gives the defender an advantage, and should be called a foul. When I assessed this philosophy and tried to apply a specific point in the rulebook, I came up with the following: 10-6-1: A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip, or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm...................
Contact, no matter how slight, allows the defender to use his sense of touch along with his sense of sight, to anticipate the movement of his opponent and work to, yes, impede his progress. So, do I call a foul every time the defender grazes the dribbler with a fingernail? No. But when the defender does have a hand on the dribbler and I do call it a foul, I see no way that anyone can say it was not a foul.

Thanks Jeff, I may be changing my opinion based on that statement.

Kinda like 2 butt cheeks making contact during a box out "is not going to be called "automatic" foul from me unless there is a created advantage by the "box outer" "??

Has there ever been an NFHS POE that two butt cheeks during a box out is an automatic foul?

This discussion has led me to an interesting question - how much weight should "old" POEs be given? They have some "rule of law" in that they are interpretations of the Rules by the NFHS with guidance to how they want those rules applied. But when they are taken out, do we assume they no longer want those rules applied that way, or that the NFHS has simply determined that the area of concern has been appropriately addressed by officials but that we still need to apply those POEs until we hear differently?

This "two-hands automatic foul" POE is a great example of this ambiguity - the rules have been reworded since then, but not necessarily changed, so should we still look at it as official interpretation, or has something come out to override that?

POE's are basically just explanations of existing rules that the FED feels are being called incorrectly. They are issued to give direction to officials, to avoid confusion and to gain unanimity of interpretation. POE's are valid as long as the rules don't change, or the FED decides that they issued a wrong interpretation.

One example is whether disconcertion can be called on the defensive bench. You won't find a definitive answer in the rules/case book, but it was covered in an POE(the answer is "yes", if anyone wasn't sure).

Another example came up on the calling of intentional fouls. The FED issued a POE years ago saying that it was an automatic intentional foul if the head coach said "foul him" and a player did so. A couple of years later, the FED issued another POE saying that POE was wrong, fuggedaboutit and just officiate the act.

The interpretations that the FED posts on their web site every year are similar to POE's. Some of those never make it into the case book, but they are still valid unless the rules change or a different interpretation is issued.

Personally, I find old POE's very helpful. They answer questions and give direction. l have no reason to believe that they are no longer valid unless the FED has issued something to the contrary.

Thanks, Jurassic. Would this lead you to call two hands on the dribbler an automatic hand-checking foul?

I'm not Jurassic, but I'd call it 99% of the time. (One excpetion might be on a post-player who dribbles into the defender and the defender's hands are close to his/her own body.)

I'm not nearly as old as Jurassic, but yes. ;)

Old POE are definitely still valid and state the proper way to call the game, unless as JR noted the relevant rule has changed or a ruling to the contrary has been issued (such as was the case with the coach instructing his team to foul).

All officials who have a memory larger than that of a squirrel have no problem relying upon the information in past POEs. It's only the less intelligent officials whom I have seen saying that old interpretations and POEs aren't valid.

AS I said before, our association trains our officials to make that exact call. If officials call it uniformly, the teams will adjust quickly. As always, the biggest problem we have is the odd official that thinks that the direction issued goes against his personal philosophy and he/she refuses to call it. That just leads to confusion on the defenders' part as to what they can do or not do.

Jmo, but I think that the key is trying to get all officials to call the play the same way, rather than having dueling local interpretations. The players/coaches have to know what to expect; the players in order to play defense and the coaches in order to coach defense.

If an area feels that 2 hands on a dribbler isn't a automatic foul, I don't have a problem with that as long as everybody in that area calls that play uniformly. The problem arises though when you have to officiate teams from areas with different calling philosophies. And those problems lead right back to the reason <b>why</b> the FED issues POE's every year.

You are wise almost to your years.

Does he use the "block" call? (signal 32). Because the word "block" doesn't appear in 10-6-1, only "impede the progress"

According to BITS, that particular assignor uses the "hold" or "push" signal. Those words are in 10-6-1.

He's certainly going above and beyond the call of duty imo.:)