what is the official ruling

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Unless I have missed something, the rules on incidental contact have not changed. So what the POE says or does not say did not change the rule. I for one am not going to be calling a hand check foul only because of the touching of a dribbler. You still have to direct or move that player in some way.

It sounds to me like the NF is trying to use a NCAA Women's philosophy for all levels when it does not work very well in Boy's basketball. And I do not think it is practical to call it that way either. See the dirty little secret is that if you call it without some consideration of the affect on the play is going to bring more problems than calling it the way the POE is trying to suggest. At least in past POEs, the rules on incidental contact were always referenced.

So because you personally disagree with the new POE, you aren't going to follow it?
Is this another stance based upon the "college" viewpoint?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So because you personally disagree with the new POE, you aren't going to follow it?
Is this another stance based upon the "college" viewpoint?

It is a POE, not a rule. And the rulebook still wins out. And I will call what I did before as it relates to the rule. Also considering that I call a lot of hand checks over the course of the game, I think I am not the person the NF is trying to reach.

And actually my stance has little to do with any point of view other than the obvious one. The POE could have come right from the NCAA Women's College Guidelines. If that is how they want it to be called, change the rule.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is a POE, not a rule. And the rulebook still wins out. And I will call what I did before as it relates to the rule. Also considering that I call a lot of hand checks over the course of the game, I think I am not the person the NF is trying to reach.

And actually my stance has little to do with any point of view other than the obvious one. The POE could have come right from the NCAA Women's College Guidelines. If that is how they want it to be called, change the rule.

Aren't POE's in the rulebook? And isn't the FED and NCAA Womens POE's exactly the same as what is already in the NCAA Mens rulebook anyway? Appendix III 7(b) of the NCAA Mens Officiating Guidelines at the back of the NCAA book states that placing two hands on a dribbler should be an automatic foul also.

As long as I've been around, the high school rule and also the calling philosophy has been that it is an automatic foul if a defender puts both hands on a player with the ball. That's the situation being discussed. Judgment is used when a defender puts one hand on a player with the ball. That's been explained pretty clearly in the POE's imo.

I realize that there might still be regional differences. Those regional differences are exactly why the FED has to issue the exact same POE year after year. They are trying to reach the officials who think that their personal calling philosophies are better than those of the FED.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Aren't POE's in the rulebook? And isn't the FED and NCAA Womens POE's exactly the same as what is already in the NCAA Mens rulebook anyway? Appendix III 7(b) of the NCAA Mens Officiating Guidelines at the back of the NCAA book states that placing two hands on a dribbler should be an automatic foul also.

As long as I've been around, the high school rule and also the calling philosophy has been that it is an automatic foul if a defender puts both hands on a player with the ball. That's the situation being discussed. Judgment is used when a defender puts one hand on a player with the ball. That's been explained pretty clearly in the POE's imo.

I realize that there might still be regional differences. Those regional differences are exactly why the FED has to issue the exact same POE year after year. They are trying to reach the officials who think that their personal calling philosophies are better than those of the FED.

That sounds wonderful, but there is no rule basis for those comments. At least the last time this was a POE they made it clear that incidental contact still was a factor (maybe they can indicate that when it is printed in the rulebook).

If you never read the POE this year or the following year is this "philosophy" still going to be in the rulebook? And currently there is no reference to these "philosophies" on what is a hand-checking foul in the actual rulebook. And in the current rulebook under 10-6 there is no reference to "two hands on the dribbler is a foul." Actually the language is very vague on purpose in my opinion and basically says that you cannot direct or move a player with the ball.

And the NCAA Men's Officiating Guidelines make sure that hand-checking is called, "impeding the progress" not just "contact with the dribbler." And I can tell you that no one that I have come in contact with is expecting a foul called that does not impede the progress. And that includes the current NCAA Coordinator that was watching me and two other officials call a game and wondered why we were calling a lot of hand-checking fouls (there is a story behind this, I just do not want to tell it). And when I started NCAA on the Women's side, this was not only a guideline; it was expected to be called no matter what took place. It was even in the NCAA tape which is a seal of approval by the NCAA Coordinator.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That sounds wonderful, but there is no rule basis for those comments.

Say what?

POE # 2B in THIS year's(2008-09) NFHS rule book states "Regardless of where it happens on the floor, when a player places both hands on a player, it is a foul."

On page 22 of the NCAA rulebook, under the Womens guidelines for Illegal Contact, it states "A foul shall be called when defender contacts the ball handler/dribbler ANYTIME with two hands."

In Appendix III, Section 7 of the NCAA rulebook, the Mens guidelines state "When a defensive player puts two hands on an opponent, it is a personal foul."

All of those statements came verbatim directly out of the respective rule books. Whatinthehell could be any plainer...and clearer...than that? They tell officials exactly how the NCAA Mens and Womens Rules Committees, and the NFHS Rules Committee, want the play called.

Saying that there is no rules basis for something that is clearly stated IN the RULE BOOK is just patently ridiculous imo.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Say what?

POE # 2B in THIS year's(2008-09) NFHS rule book states "Regardless of where it happens on the floor, when a player places both hands on a player, it is a foul."

On page 22 of the NCAA rulebook, under the Womens guidelines for Illegal Contact, it states "A foul shall be called when defender contacts the ball handler/dribbler ANYTIME with two hands."

In Appendix III, Section 7 of the NCAA rulebook, the Mens guidelines state "When a defensive player puts two hands on an opponent, it is a personal foul."

All of those statements came verbatim directly out of the respective rule books. Whatinthehell could be any plainer...and clearer...than that? They tell officials exactly how the NCAA Mens and Womens Rules Committees, and the NFHS Rules Committee, want the play called.

Saying that there is no rules basis for something that is clearly stated IN the RULE BOOK is just patently ridiculous imo.

Let me put it this way. Being in the outskirts of the book and being under the rules (1-10) is very different. This POE is not in the rules portion or in the casebook (which it might end up being). And if the NF wants everyone to be on board and not question their logic, then that might go further than making a POE then taking a phrase from another level (which also makes clear that hand-checking is impeding the progress of a ball handler a foul, not just touching the ball handler). So if you cannot understand that basic distinction, then that is fine with me. And most officials do not even know this place exists on the internet and the other half do not care. So your point of view on this might seem right, but that is not the question most people will ask off this site. And they will wonder where the rules mess with what the POE is asking. And unlike many people here, many do not accept everything that comes from the NF as law or they question their logic in rules making and other issues they decide to put in their books. When I have regular conversations with people that never come to this board, they find a lot of things wrong with the way the NF expects things.

Sorry if I do not accept the way the NF does everything.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Let me put it this way. Being in the outskirts of the book and being under the rules (1-10) is very different. This POE is not in the rules portion or in the casebook (which it might end up being). And if the NF wants everyone to be on board and not question their logic, then that might go further than making a POE then taking a phrase from another level (which also makes clear that hand-checking is impeding the progress of a ball handler a foul, not just touching the ball handler). So if you cannot understand that basic distinction, then that is fine with me.

That is all fine and good except that the POE's are exactly the opposite of what you describe them to be. They are a notice to officials that there are too many who are NOT calling the printed rule correctly. There is NO change to the rule.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And unlike many people here, many do not accept everything that comes from the NF as law or they question their logic in rules making and other issues they decide to put in their books. When I have regular conversations with people that never come to this board, they find a lot of things wrong with the way the NF expects things.

Sorry if I do not accept the way the NF does everything.

Peace

And therein lies the root of inconsistency.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And if the NF wants everyone to be on board and not question their logic, then that might go further than making a POE then taking a phrase from another level (which also makes clear that hand-checking is impeding the progress of a ball handler a foul, not just touching the ball handler).

The FED and the NCAA(Men & Women) are talking about the situation where a defender puts two hands on the dribbler. They are not talking about "hand checking" where only one hand is put on an offensive player. That situation was, and still is, a judgment call under all three rulesets. The FED and NCAA rules committes are all saying that there is NO judgment involved when a defender puts both hands on a dribbler; it is an automatic foul.

That's exactly what the initial post of this thread was asking about....two hands on a dribbler.

Two hands on an offensive player versus one hand on an offensive player is apples/oranges.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Sorry if I do not accept the way the NF does everything.

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 only 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 not 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.