The Beauty of Summer Sight-Seeing

[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.

[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.

[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 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]

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.

[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.

[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.