what is the official ruling

[charleshaddon81]

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.

[BillyMac]

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.

[Adam]

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.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Remember RSBQ.

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

[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.

Peace

[btaylor64]

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.

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

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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

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

[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.