The Beauty of Summer Sight-Seeing

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Not my thought. That's a direct quote from the NFHS POE.

Did the NFHS enlarge it, italicize it, and color it red? Nothing wrong with emphasizing a Point of Emphasis. Redundant? Yes. Did you help the NFHS to emphasis this. Yes, quite successfully.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Exactly....the POE's are pointing out that there are times where an advantage is gained or play is too rough that are not being called....when two hands are on the opponent is a good indicator.

That statement is completely wrong.

Here's the verbatim statement from NFHS POE's in 2001-02 and 2003-04--"Hand checking is NOT incidental contact. It gives a tremendous advantage to the person illegally using their hands."

And what could be clearer than the POE from the 2003-04?--"When a player places BOTH hands on an opposing player, it IS a foul."

Apparently there's more than one area that likes to ignore very, very specific POE's and Officiating Guidelines. As I said, imo that's sad.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

"Hand checking is NOT incidental contact. It gives a tremendous advantage to the person illegally using their hands."

And what could be clearer than the POE from the 2003-04?--"When a player places BOTH hands on an opposing player, it IS a foul."

I could be wrong, but I think Camron agrees with you. He said that two hands on a ballhandler is a good indicator that things are not being called that should be.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

No, but they did except hand-checking from the purview of that rule.

Perhaps if you bothered to actually read the POE you would understand that.

"Hand-checking is not incidental contact"

You are right, hand-checking is not incidental contact and I never said it was. And a foul does not involve just touching either (according to the rules, actually in the rules portion that deals with this issue). Also hand-checking is also not described as simple touching either. Actually the NCAA describes Hand-Checking as “Impeding the Progress of a Player” in that Appendix that JR is so proud to post.

And it says in both codes, I repeat: "Contact that does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive and offensive movements, shall be considered incidental."

So you cannot have hand-checking until someone has been affected in their movement. That sounds pretty clear if you ask me.

We can play this game all night long. The bottom line is the POE is not something that stands alone. It never does. They make POEs to highlight aspects of a rule that is not being applied. POEs are not rules changes or applied without any consideration of any other rules or description of the rules. You do not throw out the other aspects of the rule just because the POE says one thing. The NF and the NCAA want to highlight contact on the dribbler and wants more calls for that behavior. They are not changing basic rules applications, they are highlighting them. That is why they call them “Points of Emphasis.” There is a bigger picture here and it is not all about the POE only. It never is and it never will be.

Peace

[truerookie]

Wow, I attended a camp this summer. One of the clinician, he would go ballistic if you did not call hand checking or any contact on the ball handler. Especially, the point guard.

The reasoning: the ball handler is the quarterback of the team and if his/her rhythm is disrupted because of a bump or hand(s) it needs to be call. NOT INCIDENTAL.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

That statement is completely wrong.

Here's the verbatim statement from NFHS POE's in 2001-02 and 2003-04--"Hand checking is NOT incidental contact. It gives a tremendous advantage to the person illegally using their hands."

And what could be clearer than the POE from the 2003-04?--"When a player places BOTH hands on an opposing player, it IS a foul."

Apparently there's more than one area that likes to ignore very, very specific POE's and Officiating Guidelines. As I said, imo that's sad.

Don't apply single statements in a vacuum...unless you work games played ina vacuum. Even as direct as the statement may seem to be, there are other statements by the same organizations that counter it.

I already said the POE work most of the time and are usually applicable and should be followed...but they don't comprehend ALL game situations. There are times that it would simply be wrong to call a foul just becasue two hands made contact. Such time include situations where calling the foul would disadvantage the team with the ball.

Plus, its only handchecking if I decide it's handchecking and blow the whistle (that's the definition of a foul). If I don't blow the whistle, then it is not, by definition, a foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Wow, I attended a camp this summer. One of the clinician, he would go ballistic if you did not call hand checking or any contact on the ball handler. Especially, the point guard.

The reasoning: the ball handler is the quarterback of the team and if his/her rhythm is disrupted because of a bump or hand(s) it needs to be call. NOT INCIDENTAL.

No one said not to call hand checking. And no one said that at a camp someone would be upset if someone called hand checking. And no one said hand checking was incidental contact either.

Did you actually read the comments?

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Plus, its only handchecking if I decide it's handchecking and blow the whistle (that's the definition of a foul). If I don't blow the whistle, then it is not, by definition, a foul.

And those statements sum up quite well the frustration felt by FED and NCAA rulesmakers when some officials refuse to follow very explicit POE's and Officiating Guidelines on how the game should be officiated. There's all kinds of rules extant that I don't like or agree with either. That doesn't mean that I can ignore those rules and make up my own rules to call.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I could be wrong, but I think Camron agrees with you. He said that two hands on a ballhandler is a good indicator that things are not being called that should be.

You are wrong. If you go back to post #22 of this thread and re-read it, you will see that Camron is agreeing with Rut's statement that "Rhythm, Balance, Speed and Quickness is what you should apply when calling hand-check fouls on perimeter contact. If none of those things are disrupted, then you do not need to call a foul." Those statements are completely antithetical to the direction given us by FED and NCAA rulesmakers in regards to a defender placing two hands on a ballhandler.

Camron stated in that post that there are cases where an advantage is gained or play is too rough that two hands on a ballhandler is a good indicator. Both the FED and NCAA rulesmakers are telling us that particular call has nothing to do with advantage/disadvantage, rough play or RBSQ. If we see 2 hands on a ballhandler, we are simply supposed to call a foul.

Rut isn't talking about one very specific case where a defender puts two hands on a ballhandler after that ballhandler has beaten and gone completely past that defender and has a clear path to the basket. He is talking about all instances where a defender places two hands on a ballhandler. The rulesmakers disagree with that philosophy completely.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You are wrong.

Oh. Well, then. . . never mind.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Oh. Well, then. . . never mind.

Clarification...of course, that was only my opinion. Feel free to tell me that your opinion is that I'm full of doodoo.

Unless I'm completely confused, Camron is agreeing with Rut....and that sureasheck isn't the same as agreeing with me.

[truerookie]

[quote=JRutledge]No one said not to call hand checking. And no one said that at a camp someone would be upset if someone called hand checking. And no one said hand checking was incidental contact either.

Did you actually read the comments?

Yes, I read the comments. I was making a statement not directly at anyone. So, I just find it hard to believe incidental contact even came into this discussion.

In my short life as an official. I find it hard to believe that a bump or anything that redirect any player with or without the ball would even be considered incidental contact.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Yes, I read the comments. I was making a statement not directly at anyone. So, I just find it hard to believe incidental contact even came into this discussion.

In my short life as an official. I find it hard to believe that a bump or anything that redirect any player with or without the ball would even be considered incidental contact.

The problem is not a single person said it that way. That is why I do not believe you really read what the comments. It is one thing to disagree with a position; it is another to completely distort what people are saying as well.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You are wrong. If you go back to post #22 of this thread and re-read it, you will see that Camron is agreeing with Rut's statement that "Rhythm, Balance, Speed and Quickness is what you should apply when calling hand-check fouls on perimeter contact. If none of those things are disrupted, then you do not need to call a foul." Those statements are completely antithetical to the direction given us by FED and NCAA rulesmakers in regards to a defender placing two hands on a ballhandler.

Not quite....I'll call it without disrupting RBSQ....but not 100%.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Camron stated in that post that there are cases where an advantage is gained or play is too rough that two hands on a ballhandler is a good indicator.

Exactly...and indicator, not the only deciding factor.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Both the FED and NCAA rulesmakers are telling us that particular call has nothing to do with advantage/disadvantage, rough play or RBSQ. If we see 2 hands on a ballhandler, we are simply supposed to call a foul.

No they're not. You're reading the wrong intent into their words....your own personal views. What they're telling us is that two hands should generally be consider to be an advantage or rough play...that is has an effect...and too many officials are still not calling it...not recognizing the advantage/roughness. If that were not the case, you'd not even see the POE. If it had no effect, advantage, or roughness, the rulesmakers wouldn't even care. They just feel many officials are not recognizing the advantage that is gained too often relative to how often it is called.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Rut isn't talking about one very specific case where a defender puts two hands on a ballhandler after that ballhandler has beaten and gone completely past that defender and has a clear path to the basket. He is talking about all instances where a defender places two hands on a ballhandler. The rulesmakers disagree with that philosophy completely.

He may or may not be, but I am. That's exactly the kind of case I'm talking about....yet YOU insist that the foul should still be called...cancel the points...ball to A for a throwin.

I have yet to meet a coach who'd rather have the foul instead of the made basket....in fact most are quite upset if the foul is called and they don't get the points.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Yes, I read the comments. I was making a statement not directly at anyone. So, I just find it hard to believe incidental contact even came into this discussion.

In my short life as an official. I find it hard to believe that a bump or anything that redirect any player with or without the ball would even be considered incidental contact.

Incidental contact came in because it happens all game. Typically, contact is incidental if there is no advantage gained. The argument is whether two hands on the player, without any sign of advantage, should be considered incidental.