what is the official ruling
 

So in an 18 under AAU basketball game, the guard is being heavily defended by a taller player. He gives a pump fake to the defender and drives left towards the basket. The defender gets back into position but his hands are on the players hips. It does not look like he changed the momentum of the gaurd dribbling the ball, but none the less, I heard it from 2 coaches that the any time the defender places his hands on the hips of the man dribbling the basketball it is a foul. I thought as long as the players momentum was not impeaded that it was not a foul, or is any touching to the hips, whether it slows momentum down or not a foul?

Thanks.

Hot Off The Presses ...
 

NFHS 2008-09 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

B. Hand-checking. Defenders are not permitted to have hands on the dribbler or offensive players away from the ball. Hand-checking is not incidental contact; it gives a tremendous advantage to the person using illegal hands/tactics. An offensive player who uses his/her hands or body to push off in order to create a more favorable position has committed a foul. Regardless of where it happens on the floor, when a player:
1) Continuously places a hand on the opposing player – it is a foul.
2) Places both hands on a player – it is a foul.
3) Continuously jabs a hand or forearm on an opponent – it is a foul.

That said, here are some things that I keep in mind regarding this situation:
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 Rythym, Speed, Balance, or Quickness are affected, we should have a hand-checking foul.

Since it's hard to determine whether the player's direction or speed has been altered, it's generally best to call the hand-check quickly. It's also been an NFHS POE forever.

I do. I always try to have a Really Spicy BarbeQue after every game. ;)

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.

Peace

I believe that the guidelines (not philosophy) of the women is as close to getting it right as the college game will get it and I also believe it is the best way to referee at the men's level as well, imo of course

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

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 <b>Mens</b> 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 <b>rule</b> and also the calling philosophy has been that it is an automatic foul if a defender puts <b>both</b> 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.

The guidelines for a situation where a defender places <b>both</b> hands on a player with the ball are exactly the <b>same</b> under NFHS and NCAA Mens and Womens rules. All three say that a foul should be called.

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

Say what?:confused:

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

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

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

All of those statements came <i>verbatim</i> 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 <b>IN</b> the <b>RULE BOOK</b> 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

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.

And therein lies the root of inconsistency.

The FED and the NCAA(Men & Women) are talking about the situation where a defender puts <b>two hands</b> 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.

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

No (I realize I'm disagreeing with Rut here, but he won't care.)

Hindering the opponent is not the same thing as creating an advantage. The rule says just that, "hinders an opponent...." It doesn't say "or which creates an advantage for the player responsible for contact."

Personally, I don't buy the "measure up" theory anyway, but I still don't see how mere contact can be considered to hinder an opponent because it helps the initiator. If the opponent can still participate in normal defensive and offensive movements, it's incidental contact.