Jeff, sorry if I'm going to do some bandwagon-jumping here, but I'm going to have to agree with Jurassic on this one. The POE's are definitely part of the rules; they are not just "suggestions". And, given the fact our area (Illinois) uses NF rules and mechanics, I don't see any reason to not follow them. I don't agree with the logic of some of the rules, interpretations and mechanics, but I have to follow them anyway when doing a HS game. The <B>only</B> way I would consider something different is if I was told by Kurt Gibson or Harry Bone that in Illinois we will be doing it differently. Have you been told by either that two hands on a dribbler is <B>not</B> an automatic foul? If so, the rest of us need to know that, so that officials in the entire state can call it the same way.

This is one of the perfect examples of the problem of consistency. Perhaps you've been told by certain supervisors or "big dogs" in some of your conferences that two hands on a dribbler should not be an automatic foul, and that displacement or disadvantage should still be considered. After all, the big boys can play through someone touching them with two hands, right? If that's true, then those teams will be at a major disadvantage when they go play teams in areas that the officials follow the NF rules "by the book". And whose fault would that be? Both sets of officials would be calling the game as they've been told, but it will be different for the kids. So it will be the kids that suffer from the lack of consistency between areas. This is the problem with supervisors and officials bringing in their own philosophies into the game instead of following the rules and interpretations as written.

I have never had a full out conversation with either about calling hand-checks specifically. I have never heard Harry (BTW it is Bohn, not Bone :D) ever (and he is a supervisor for college) ever suggest that you should call a foul "automatically" for two hands on a dribbler. Actually I have heard him talk about letting certain things go or not calling something that is not necessary. And Kurt tends to not try to tell officials how to call the game as it relates to judgment calls. He even suggests many times that he is not an official and is not qualified to make those kinds of judgments.

Are you suggesting that a foul should be called no matter what? The player is not moved, impeded, stopped in any way but a defender just touches a ball handler with two hands, we should have a foul?

I would suggest that is not what is good for the game. And that violates or contradicts other rules on incidental contact which requires some movement to be affected by the contact. Also Harry does not expect calls to not be there or teaches officials to "make it be there." And considering that the camp he runs with a Final Four official as well and he teaches the same things in the same camp, I would suggest that this is not going to be a required.

Also this claim that "consistency" across the area is silly. You are not going to have kids that do not play the same way the same style and expect consistency all over a state or a country. In our state I can tell you that the Chicago Catholic League does not play the same way as the Pike Country Conference. There are not the same athletes and definitely not the same expectation of the way the game is called. Forget what the officials or supervisors want. Definitely if you change the classes of competitors (now that we have this silly 4 class system) and the gender you are not going to get the same type of game. Consistency should only be the concern of officials working a particular game.

Peace

Is that really true? Rut has gone out of his way numerous times on this forum to tell everyone that his state does NOT use NFHS mechanics.

Considering that I am a Basketball Clinician with the IHSA and the IHSA no longer mails NF Official's Manuals, I think we do not use NF Mechanics. I specifically remembered you referencing a change for last year’s book that we did not adopt. And to be a clinician you have to be picked by Harry Bohn personally, I think I know what I am talking about.

All our mechanics are on PowerPoint and on the IHSA website in all sports.

With all due respect to M&M, I think I am a little bit more qualified to speak on what our state does or does not do as it relates to our mechanics and I actually I had a conversation with Harry during a committee meeting for another IHSA function about listing all of our differences mechanically with the NF to eliminate confusion.

Do you know anyone else here that is attending the meeting on May 18 in Bloomington? Let me know.

Peace

Why do you always take it so personally?

The post was clearly directed to M&M, not you.

Who said I was taking it personally?

I guess the truth makes you nervous?

Peace

10-6-2: "A player shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand....."

Unlike other articles in 10-6, there is no mention of hindering the opponent's freedom of movement. Therefore, we may infer that this is not necessary for the contact to be a foul. One interpretation I have heard, (not sure where) is that the defender not be allowed the contact with the hand, no matter how slight, because this contact allows the defender to "measure" his opponent. In other words, the defender uses his sense of touch to aid his sense of sight in anticipating the movement of the offensive player.

Bottom line: You have your hand on the dribbler, you get called for a foul, you want to argue the call. You don't have a leg to stand on.

Ok, ok, let me interrupt this catfight... :D

First, apologize to Harry for me for misspelling his name. I knew it was Bohn - but that's what I get for typing quickly at work.

Jeff, I was not aware we are no longer using NF mechanics. I was under the impression the reason we were no longer receiving the mechanics manuals was as a cost saving move to avoid postage costs, not because we were going away from the basics. Sure, there may be a few small items that are different, such as I know for sure Harry wants us to ALWAYS hand the ball to a thower on the baseline, even if we're in the backcourt. But those are minor items, not major differences in philosophy.

But, most importantly, those are mechanics. We were talking rules and POE's. As far as I know, they still want us to follow NF rules because they were still sending out rulebooks, right? ;) I've also heard Harry speak the last couple of years at our association meetings right before regionals started, and he has specifically stated his, and the IHSA's goals, are to have consistency in the entire state, from Chicago down to Cairo. I'm not arguing the merits of whether two hands on a dribbler should automatically be a foul. All I'm saying it is written as such in the rulebook the IHSA wants us to use, and if there is a difference in philosophy with the IHSA, then they need to do a better job of letting the rest of us know about that difference.

So, to answer your question:
If I see it, yep, because that's what the rule and POE says.

Now, we can have another discussion as to whether I would actually see that second hand touch in that particular instance... ;)

Really, you're going to call a foul every time a player contacts an opponent with his hand? That'll make for a nice short career. I know you don't do that, so....

Look at rule 4-19-1, definition of foul: Now look at rule 4-27-3
Bottom line: without that hindrance, there is no foul, by rule. Of course, the POE in question gives one exception.

"You can't handle the truth!"

(Insert picture of a hollywood star in full dress actor uniform yelling at another hollywood star in full dress actor uniform.)

You mean that you have missed all of Rut's posts continually stating such?

You mean that the people in your state office haven't made their top secret plan clear to everyone? Rather they have only told Rut and a few other select individuals whom they invite to their double secret probation meetings.

Shocking! Just shocking!

Perhaps you also aren't aware of their super secret instruction to ignore all NFHS POEs because they aren't really the rules. ;)

I've been on double-secret probation for years now.

(Insert picture of Hollywood star squishing mashed potatoes out of his mouth.)

Anyway, I will defend him (a little). First, because there are a few minor differences, it can be said we do not follow NF mechanics (to the letter). And, come to think of it, we do not follow NF rules to the letter either - an example would be last year's uniform rule and penalty. The IHSA told us after the start of the year that we should report the team to the IHSA, but not issue T's for each player. But, if anyone asks me which rules we use here in IL, I will still always say National Federation rules.

Back to your regularly-scheduled cat fight.

I definitely don't do that. My idea is more of a "When in doubt, it is a foul," on a hand check, while I lean much more toward "When it doubt, it is not a foul," in most other cases. As far as contact with both hands, while still not automatic,
(is there really such a thing?) I would say this makes the foul call much more likely. Twice as likely, if you think about it.:D


If the defender uses the contact of the hand to measure the opponent, (yes, this is a theory, but one that I think has merit) and this contact, which is illegal according to 10-6-2, allows the defender to more easily maintain his defensive position, this could easily be considered a hindrance, could it not?

The rulebooks and the manuals are two separate issues. We are not using the manuals anymore because the NF has either not updated their mechanics or they just off base with real out of touch with current mechanics. And this is an all sport policy, not just a basketball policy. And the chasms are vastly different in sports like Football and Baseball where the NF has been very outdated. Basketball we are more inline with the NF but there are things we do not subscribe to.

That is sometimes debatable because it would not be the first time if the Kurt or Harry took a position on a specific rule that was different than the NF. And until we see what is presented at the rules meeting we do not know for sure if they will not take a position a little different than the guidelines the NF suggested.

Well I will take my chances that the only people that will want that called is the coach that will benefit. I think if you make that call very much, then you will be called to the carpet by being too technical and at the end of the day my regular season games do not come from the IHSA or the NF. And you can stand on a silly principle and not work any games at all. I am manly saying that it is not a practical application made from people who do not officiate the game. And to me this is a bigger issue on the boy's side where you will get a lot of flack for calling fouls where people only touch each other. There has to be a higher standard than that. On the girl's side that might be acceptable, but not in places where I work that would not fly. Of course coaches claim they want more hand-checking calls, but speaking as someone who calls a lot of them there is enough complaining when they are legit. It is really going to make no sense if we call a ball handler just standing and he is touched and we have a foul that did not knock the player off balance or off their spot.

Peace

Wait a minute; you are not following the letter of the law. Shame on you. :D

I think it could, but that is where you judgment comes into play. And all I am asking is for some judgment to still be at play and consider that rules like 4-27 still exist. Now if the NF wants to change that rule, then that is fine with me. I feel it is irresponsible to make a POE that is not supported by rule without changing the rule.

Peace