The Beauty of Summer Sight-Seeing
 

So I'm at this Varsity Summer tournament and see quite possibly the funniest thing I've ever seen as far as coach/official interaction.

Game before my teams game, Team A is defending Team B and B1 is blatantly carrying the ball as he crosses halfcourt. To protect against a pesky defender A1, B1 is dribbling with his back to the defender, carrying the ball (fully cupping the ball and holding it after each bounce) with his left hand while waiting for a teammate to get open. Coach A is screaming for a doubledribble/carrying call, and the officials says "if he doesn't go by him, there's no advantage so Im not gonna call that, come'on coach".

So that game ends, my game goes with another set of officials, and Team A happens to play Team C after our game. Team C wins the tip and there is a turnover out of bounds. Team A inbounds the ball from the baseline with Team C dropping back to a 2-3 zone. A3 passes to A1, who takes one dribble, then carries the ball in one hand while walking 4 or 5 steps before bouncing the ball again. The Trail official (the one from team A's previous game) looks over at Coach A as the whole Team C bench is screaming for a travel/carry and the Team A bench just cracking up laughing...

Hilarious...

A great example of why JR says that adv/disad should rightly be applied to contact in the judgment of fouls, but not to violations. :eek:

This official allowed the sport to become a farce. :mad:

Sadly, he probably believes that he is doing a quality job of officiating. :(

I agree, it's one thing not to pay too close attention to the carry at this level because you have other things to worry about, even as trail. But to tell the coach you're not calling it because there's no advantage is just setting a lot of folks up to fail later, including the official.

As far as advantage/disadvantage goes: Even if the ballhandler does not "go by" the defender with the carry, isn't the defender at a disadvantage because he does not know if the suspended dribble is being terminated and is unable to make the proper play? For example, if the ballhandler is picking up the ball and terminating his dribble, the defender can pressure up on the ball further without worrying about another dribble, whereas if the dribble is live, the defender must be cautious of pressuring to hard.

The officials at this tournament were constantly talking about advantage disadvantage, especially when it came to hand checking the dribbler. I had a nice discussion with a few officials between games about this subject. Asked why a 2 handed hip check was not called a foul, one official said "well, he still got by his defender, so there was no advantage". When I asked "well even though he got by the first defender that held him, it slows him down enough for the second help defender, isn't that an advantage gained?" We had a good discussion about this with no real resolution, but it was interesting and thought provoking. All except for one ref who said "it's only foul if i call it a foul" and walked away. He was a short guy.

BillyMac's Law ...
 

Always Call The Obvious.

If you do, you can't do wrong.

Perhaps he was really just a small man. :eek:

PS Can we leave Chuck out of this? :D

I've been taught 2 hands is an automatic.

Obviously, you were taught by someone who actually reads what the NFHS publishes. (But don't tell Rut. ;) )

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.

Rut won't care, Blydic isn't in Illinois.

Too bad that they didn't understand the concept of advantage/disadvantage though.

As Nevada said, the NFHS has given out to officials multi guidelines on defensive contact via case plays and POE's. So has the NCAA. And these guidelines get repeated over and over. And yet, some officials will still ignore 'em and use their own.

Sad.

In my neck of the woods this whole handchecking topic is the way it is in summer ball. It's just part of the culture.:eek:

I don't do very much summer ball and this is part of the reason. It gets pretty rough. The rules are set up so players have unlimited fouls and they know it. Partners don't want you to call anything short of murder,coaches-well I don't know what coaches want except every call to go their way, and for myself it's not that fun.

There was a thread about mechanics or no mechanics in summer ball. Part of that thread was getting the calls right and working on adv/disadv. Heck around here in summer ball adv/disadv is really would he get time in county jail for that ? If yes tweet, if no pass.

So being I have no interest in changing the summer ball culture of where I live I only do it when the assignors get jammed up and I get the last minute call.

Ball-Handler / Hand-Checking
 

This is part of my extended pregame, not every game, just when I work with a rookie official, or with an official for the first time:

Ball-Handler / Hand-Checking
Places both hands on a ball-handler, it is a foul.
Continuously places a hand on the ball-handler, it is a foul.
Continuously jabs a hand or forearm on a ball-handler, it is a foul.
Remember RSBQ. If the dribbler’s Rhythm, Speed, Balance, or Quickness are affected, we should have a hand-checking foul.

I would add "almost always" in most of those. If I've got a defender (who has been beat) with two hands on a dribbler who is headed for an undefended layup (but is not yet in the act of shooting) I'm not blowing the whistle and taking away two points....unless I plan on calling it an intentional.

“Rhythm, Balance, Speed and Quickness” is what you should apply when calling hand-check fouls or perimeter contact.

If none of these things are disrupted, then you do not need to call a foul. Fouls still have to have an advantage/disadvantage element to them. They also did not throw out the incidental contact rule either in this POE. And if anyone attended any of the camps I attended and you called a foul simply for two hands on a player, you would have heard about it a lot. ;)

Peace

Or Indiana, Texas, Kentucky, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi or any other state that I worked with officials from that were not calling "touching." :)

Peace

And if anyone attended any of the camps that I'm familiar with, if you failed to call a foul when a defender put both hands on the opponent, you would have heard about it a lot.

For college camps, what may be usually heard is "Don't you read the damn appendixes in the rulebook too? That tells you how the play should be called."

....As in NCAA Appendix II-Section7(b).

Camps that advocate ignoring illegal contact is the reason the exact same NFHS POE's and NCAA bulletins on contact get issued year after year after year.

Once again, unless I misread something, the rules did not change for incidental contact in both NCAA (4-40-3) and the NF (4-27-3). And I see no where in the "actually rules" that it says it is an automatic foul to put two hands on a player. Either the NCAA and/or NF change the rules on contact or stop trying to apply a "philosophy" which is in complete conflict of rules in your Appendix or POE. Also the heading of that NCAA Appendix III (not II) says "Officiating Guidelines. So these are guidelines, not rules or absolutes.

Peace

Unfortunately, for some, they're not located in the "actual rules" part of the Rule Book.

If certain areas want to hold clinics that advocate completely ignoring NCAA guidelines as well as the the clinic information put out by the NCAA itself, so be it. The NCAA has already identified that as being a major concern.

For anybody that wants to know how the NCAA wants handchecking and body bumping called ...not me(my opinion doesn't matter).. but the NCAA....all they have to do is look in the NCAA <b>RULEBOOK</b> under Appendix III-Section 7 and also go to:

http://www.eofficials.com/controlpag...NCAA.aspx?ID=3

Click on NCAA under "AFFILIATES AREA"...then click on "Mens Basketball". Look under <b>2007-08 CLINIC INFORMATION</b> and click on "chapter 3- hand-checking and body bumping". Apparently, what is taught in the posted official NCAA clinics is completely different than what is being taught in some local clinics. Imo that's sad.

I haven't been to camp yet this summer (first one is in a couple weeks), but in the past, the observers at camps that I've attended generally don't consider two hands on a ballhandler to be incidental, unless the ballhandler is already past the defender. That's just my experience. YMMV.

They're still posted <b>IN</b> both of the actual NFHS and NCAA rule books though. :)

Kinda hard to just ignore 'em then imo.....

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. It works 99% of the time....but falls short of being 100% accurate.

I did not realize I was referring to "local camps." :rolleyes:

Peace

I would go a lot lower than that, like 80% at the highest. There are a lot of player that are long gone when a defender has two hands on them. Or they we are going to have a call every time in the post no matter what.

Peace

The very reason that I said not to tell Rut!
The above words of JR describe his approach perfectly.
He pops into the thread, cites the NBA guideline on handchecking, and then says not to follow what the NFHS has very clearly stated. He is the quintessence of the problem.

Sad indeed. :(

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"

This is just beautiful. If I wasn't so danged macho, I might cry.

Unfortunately, he won't even know what it means.

Really ???
 

Come on Nevadaref, tell us what you really think.

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

After All, It Is A Point of Emphasis ...
 

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.

That statement is completely wrong.

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

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

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.

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 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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 <i>"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 <b>not</b> need to call a foul."</i> 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 <b>after</b> that ballhandler has beaten and gone completely <b>past</b> that defender and has a clear path to the basket. He is talking about <b>all</b> instances where a defender places two hands on a ballhandler. The rulesmakers disagree with that philosophy completely.

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.

[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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

How often do you really see a defender manage to turn around and put both hands on a ballhandler <b>after</b> that ballhandler has beaten him and gotten completely <b>past</b> 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.:)

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

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.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">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.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

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.

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:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">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.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
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.

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

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 <b>NEVER</b> a judgment call. Two hands placed on a ballhandler by a defender is an automatic foul. That includes <b>all</b> instances when a ballhandler is right <b>beside</b> a defender imo.

If a ballhandler is <b>beside</b> 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.)

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.

Who is pissed? :confused:

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. :rolleyes:

Peace

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? :eek:

That is complete and utter nonsense. The NFHS and NCAA rulesmakers are attempting to get everyone to recognize through very clear and explicit language contained in NFHS POE's and in an APPENDIX in the NCAA rulebook that there is no advantage/disadvantage involved anywhere in this particular play. Both rulesets use the exact same, unequivocal language:

<i><b>"WHEN A DEFENSIVE PLAYER PUTS TWO HANDS ON AN OPPONENT, IT IS A FOUL."</b></i>

Nowhere can it be found in anything ever issued by the FED or NCAA is language saying that a defender putting two hands on an opponent <b>MAY</b> be a foul, as you are contending.

Common sense says that you should follow the explicit direction of the rulesmakers. You simply call it when it occurs. We are told exactly how to call the play and anyone intelligently using the rules will do so. What is truly sad is that some officials will still continue to ignore very plainly written POE's and other directives and make up their very own rules.

When you work for the NF or NCAA (which no one here does) or you work as a conference assignor (which neither of you are in my area and many other areas), then I can take you word for it as law. Until then this has been a very interesting conversation, but means little or nothing. You can keep repeating only the POE and ignore all other language and it means nothing but your opinion and a couple of people that tend to agree with you. You can keep putting the words in bold and that does not change what I was even told last night while working a basketball camp.

This conversation is becoming very redundant and no one here is going to change my mind about this and I am sure that the people I work for do not take that position that you are taking and likely never will.

Peace

Would you report the foul for placing two hands on a ball-handler as a hand-check or a hold? How about an arm-bar?

By the book, yes. However, for that one particular call, I usually give the handcheck signal and verbalize "Two hands" to the table.

I usually go with a push on that one.