The Beauty of Summer Sight-Seeing

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I believe THAT foul should be called....an intentional foul that is....

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by CoachP

I believe THAT foul should be called....an intentional foul that is....

How often do you really see a defender manage to turn around and put both hands on a ballhandler after that ballhandler has beaten him and gotten completely past him? In my experience, the only time that it does happen the defender is gonna use those two hands to either push the ballhandler off balance from behind or grab his shirt from behind. And if that's done from behind on a ballhandler with a clear path to the basket, then I agree that an intentional foul call would be appropriate.

You might have a patient whistle if it's merely a two-handed touch from behind on a ballhandler with a clear path to the basket. I can't remember though actually seeing a defender reaching out and just touching a ballhandler from behind with both hands without doing something additional with the touch. Of course, I don't get out that much.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by CoachP

I believe THAT foul should be called....an intentional foul that is....

Agreed....if it is intentional...a grab or shove.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

How often do you really see a defender manage to turn around and put both hands on a ballhandler after that ballhandler has beaten him and gotten completely past him? In my experience, the only time that it does happen the defender is gonna use those two hands to either push the ballhandler off balance from behind or grab his shirt from behind. And if that's done from behind on a ballhandler with a clear path to the basket, then I agree that an intentional foul call would be appropriate.

You might have a patient whistle if it's merely a two-handed touch from behind on a ballhandler with a clear path to the basket. I can't remember though actually seeing a defender reaching out and just touching a ballhandler from behind with both hands without doing something additional with the touch. Of course, I don't get out that much.

With the ballhandler completely by and getting gently touched from behind....not common....agreed.

I'd even not call a foul when the ballhandler is right beside the defender and making contact with both hands but the defender is clearly beat and is unaffected by the contact.

The camp I just returned from stressed over and over the point of seeing the whole play and making a ruling on the play...from start to finish, not just the start of a play or a single element of the play. Additionally, it was stressed that the calling of a foul is primarily a compensation for advange lost/gained. If minor to moderate contact didn't hinder the play, don't blow the whistle...period.

[Nevadaref]

Quote:

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.

I agree with the dinosaur. The NFHS is stating very clearly that two hands on = an advantage by definition, no judgment is necessary = a foul.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I don't agree with that. You still want to make a judgment decision on this. The NFHS has given you a black and white criterion that takes the judgment out of it and simply wants you to call a foul.

Quote:

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.

Considering who brought it up, I don't. If you look back through the thread, you will see that Rut was the first one to mention incidental contact. He did so even though the new and past POEs from the NFHS explicitly state that hand-checking is not incidental contact. We don't even have to consider it when making that call. If the criteria provided are met (such as two hands on the opposing ballhandler), then a hand-checking foul is necessary. That is what the national governing body wants. They have decided how they want the HS game to be contested. They have set the standard for what is acceptable and what is not. On the other hand there is Rut with his own personal opinion which he seems to think trumps the thoughts of those on the national committee. He obviously believes that his view is better for the game, and thus chooses to ignore the direct statements of the NFHS committee.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The camp I just returned from stressed over and over the point of seeing the whole play and making a ruling on the play...from start to finish, not just the start of a play or a single element of the play. Additionally, it was stressed that the calling of a foul is primarily a compensation for advange lost/gained. If minor to moderate contact didn't hinder the play, don't blow the whistle...period.

That's all fine and dandy for any contact situation EXCEPT FOR HAND-CHECKING!!!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'd even not call a foul when the ballhandler is right beside the defender and making contact with both hands but the defender is clearly beat and is unaffected by the contact.

Unfortunately when you do so, you are going completely against the very explicit instructions and guidance given to us by both the FED and NCAA rulesmakers. They both tell us that this is NEVER a judgment call. Two hands placed on a ballhandler by a defender is an automatic foul. That includes all instances when a ballhandler is right beside a defender imo.

If a ballhandler is beside a defender, I personally would never consider that defender as being beat either. I'd give the defender the chance to recover. What I won't do is allow a defender to put both hands on a ballhandler from the side.

As I said, it doesn't matter whether any of us like or agree with this particular rule. We don't have any choice but to follow it because we are being told that we have to.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Unfortunately when you do so, you are going completely against the very explicit instructions and guidance given to us by both the FED and NCAA rulesmakers. They both tell us that this is NEVER a judgment call. Two hands placed on a ballhandler by a defender is an automatic foul. That includes all instances when a ballhandler is right beside a defender imo.
.

No they don't. You are adding your own weight to the words. As with every single case they ever publish, they don't consider the what-ifs....the statements are to be generally applied but are not absolutes.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If a ballhandler is beside a defender, I personally would never consider that defender as being beat either. I'd give the defender the chance to recover. What I won't do is allow a defender to put both hands on a ballhandler from the side.

As I said, it doesn't matter whether any of us like or agree with this particular rule. We don't have any choice but to follow it because we are being told that we have to.

And on the other page we're told something else....that all fouls are judgement calls and that we are to consider the advantage and intent/purpose...and it is up to us to find a balance between the two.

Use the whole book, not just pages that work for your argument.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Well, blow me over with a feather. I'm not trying to distort anyone's words. I do not engaged in that type of activity. I make a mistake I acknowledge it and move on. I will say this again any contact which redirects a player is not incidental. It should be call.

I ask you this. The next time you officiate a game and aplayer cuts through the lane see if they get bump when there is good spacing between the players on the court. Educate me on if it incidental or not. Thanks

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No they don't. You are adding your own weight to the words. As with every single case they ever publish, they don't consider the what-ifs....the statements are to be generally applied but are not absolutes.

As Nevada posted:

2008-09 POINTS OF EMPHASIS
...
2. ROUGH PLAY
...
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.

Not really sure I'm seeing any wiggle room here.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Well, blow me over with a feather. I'm not trying to distort anyone's words. I do not engaged in that type of activity. I make a mistake I acknowledge it and move on. I will say this again any contact which redirects a player is not incidental. It should be call.

You are right. Still does not change the reality to this conversation. Simply touching a ball handler cannot be a foul if there is no advantage. That is what the rules say, not just one POE. And when this POE is no longer mentioned in the rulebook, the rule on incidental contact will stay.

Originally Posted by truerookie

I ask you this. The next time you officiate a game and aplayer cuts through the lane see if they get bump when there is good spacing between the players on the court. Educate me on if it incidental or not. Thanks

I am not trying to educate you. You can believe and call what you like. There is a reason why some people are hired and work certain ball and others sit at home.

I think this discussion is no different than when and how we call holding in football. The rules in football says nothing about how to call holding but makes it clear what is illegal or illegal when it comes to blocking. But in the real world we call holding based on point of attack, advantage to the block, strong legs or any number of considerations we make when making that call. If you want to call all "touching of players" with players and both hands, be my guest. I go to camps all the time and not only is that not expected, it is not called by even those that advocate calling handchecking. And BTW, I probably call more handchecking calls than any one official here on a regular basis. This is not about calling handchecking. It is whether this POE is void of other rules that are already in the rulebook. And the rules clearly say that contact that does not affect normal player movement is not a foul. The rest is about your judgment.

Peace

[truerookie]

I am not trying to educate you. (Interesting, I thought this was the purpose of this site). I have been wrong in the past.

You can believe and call what you like. (For me its not about what I believe and call what I like. Whats wrong with discussion different philosophies without getting pissed?)

There is a reason why some people are hired and work certain ball and others sit at home. (There maybe some truth to that or it could be who you know.)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by truerookie

I am not trying to educate you. Interesting, I thought this was the purpose of this site. I have been wrong in the past.

The purpose of this site is to discuss things. I am not aware that there is anyone in an authority position to tell people what they should and should not do outside of their personal opinion. And even if they were, that does not mean people will not disagree with them or do not have to follow their opinion.

Originally Posted by truerookie

You can believe and call what you like. For me its not about what I believe and call what I like. Whats wrong with discussion different philosophies without getting pissed?

Who is pissed?

Originally Posted by truerookie

There is a reason why some people are hired and work certain ball and others sit at home. (There maybe some truth to that or it could be who you know.

You are right, college supervisors and college officials are going to be happy with losing games and sacrifice their income so that they have people they simply know. I will make sure next time they understand that fact.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BLydic

As Nevada posted:

2008-09 POINTS OF EMPHASIS
...
2. ROUGH PLAY
...
Not really sure I'm seeing any wiggle room here.

Check out rule 4. Don't have my books with me to quote them but it defines several types of fouls...with the same type of language. This one is no different. They're just attempting to get everyone to recognize that this is sufficient to qualify as a foul because it was not clear for some people or was being passed on too often. It doesn't mean it has to be called any more than any other type of textbook foul. Common sense, advantage/disadvantage, and intelligent use of the rules is still necessary.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Check out rule 4. Don't have my books with me to quote them but it defines several types of fouls...with the same type of language. This one is no different. They're just attempting to get everyone to recognize that this is sufficient to qualify as a foul because it was not clear for some people or was being passed on too often. It doesn't mean it has to be called any more than any other type of textbook foul. Common sense, advantage/disadvantage, and intelligent use of the rules is still necessary.

Have you been possessed by Rut?