Hand checking

[jearef]

I think the "powers that be" are of the opinion that we have allowed the principle of "advantage/disadvantage" to evolve far beyond its original intent. We have forgotten the admonition that contact which is likely to lead to rough play should always be penalized. Believing that uncalled handchecks are likely to lead to rough play, here is the advice we have been given in several clinics:

1. If the defender places his hand on the dribbler and leaves it there, it is a foul.

2. If the defender places two hands on the dribbler, it is a foul.

3. If the defender uses his hand to "re-route" the dribbler, it is a foul.

4. If the defender places a forearm on the dribbler, it is a foul.

5. If the defender uses "hot stove" touches on the dribbler, it is a foul.

We have been specifically advised that the former practice of ignoring a hand on a dribbler who is moving east/west should be discarded.

[Coach Bill]

A lot has been mentioned about hands on the ball-handler, but how strict is this point of emphasis going to be away from the ball?

E.g., if a defender has a hand on his man, just keeping a feel for him, as he also keeps an eye on the ball, is this now a foul?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

...

E.g., if a defender has a hand on his man, just keeping a feel for him, as he also keeps an eye on the ball, is this now a foul?

I have never seen it written anywhere that this should be called a foul.

[Coach Bill]

“Defenders are not permitted to have hands on the dribbler or offensive players away from the ball.”

It was written above in the OP.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

“Defenders are not permitted to have hands on the dribbler or offensive players away from the ball.”

It was written above in the OP.

That's a quote from Referee Magazine. Is it written the NFHS rule book?

[JRutledge]

All I will say is the rules for incidental contact did not get removed from the rulebook. There must be an advantage to all contact unless the POE changed something. Many will disagree, but this is why some get paid the big bucks and others do not.

Peace

[Adam]

I've never understood the need to "size" someone up. A defender should be able to use his eyes for this purpose. It's not a blind basketball league, in spite of how poor my officiating may be.

[mick]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I have never seen it written anywhere that this should be called a foul.

From an old book Rules 2001-2002
POE 4. Handchecking, Rough play

A. Hands off

• Defenders are not permitted to have hands on the dribbler!
• No displacement of a cutter.
• The measuring up of an opponent (tagging) is hand-checking, is not permitted, and is a FOUL.
• Use of a forearm, regardless of the duration of thee contact is A FOUL.
• Hand-checking is not incidental contact; it gives a tremendous advantage to the person illegaly using their hands.
• This applies to both offensive and defensive players.
• Principles involved in incidental contact (Rule 4-27) apply!

Please note that the *Capitalization* and *Punctuation* is shown as written in the book.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mick

From an old book Rules 2001-2002
POE 4. Handchecking, Rough play

A. Hands off

• Defenders are not permitted to have hands on the dribbler!
• No displacement of a cutter.
• The measuring up of an opponent (tagging) is hand-checking, is not permitted, and is a FOUL.
• Use of a forearm, regardless of the duration of thee contact is A FOUL.
• Hand-checking is not incidental contact; it gives a tremendous advantage to the person illegaly using their hands.
• This applies to both offensive and defensive players.
• Principles involved in incidental contact (Rule 4-27) apply!

Please note that the *Capitalization* and *Punctuation* is shown as written in the book.

That was my first year of officiating, so I probably wasn't paying too much attention to POE's. I do remember mention of forearms on the post players. But still, I do not see the phrase “Defenders are not permitted to have hands on the dribbler or offensive players away from the ball" in that POE.

[mick]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That was my first year of officiating, so I probably wasn't paying too much attention to POE's. I do remember mention of forearms on the post players. But still, I do not see the phrase “Defenders are not permitted to have hands on the dribbler or offensive players away from the ball" in that POE.

Originally Posted by mick

From an old book Rules 2001-2002
POE 4. Handchecking, Rough play

A. Hands off

• Defenders are not permitted to have hands on the dribbler!
• No displacement of a cutter.
• The measuring up of an opponent (tagging) is hand-checking, is not permitted, and is a FOUL.
• Use of a forearm, regardless of the duration of thee contact is A FOUL.
• Hand-checking is not incidental contact; it gives a tremendous advantage to the person illegally using their hands.
• This applies to both offensive and defensive players.
• Principles involved in incidental contact (Rule 4-27) apply!

Please note that the *Capitalization* and *Punctuation* is shown as written in the book.

It's there, if you want it to be there, but we also apply steering, controlling, dsplacing, hampering, hindering.

[Terrapins Fan]

Originally Posted by jearef

I think the "powers that be" are of the opinion that we have allowed the principle of "advantage/disadvantage" to evolve far beyond its original intent. We have forgotten the admonition that contact which is likely to lead to rough play should always be penalized. Believing that uncalled handchecks are likely to lead to rough play, here is the advice we have been given in several clinics:

1. If the defender places his hand on the dribbler and leaves it there, it is a foul.

2. If the defender places two hands on the dribbler, it is a foul.

3. If the defender uses his hand to "re-route" the dribbler, it is a foul.

4. If the defender places a forearm on the dribbler, it is a foul.

5. If the defender uses "hot stove" touches on the dribbler, it is a foul.

We have been specifically advised that the former practice of ignoring a hand on a dribbler who is moving east/west should be discarded.

Our interpreter has said NO touching Zero.

[JRutledge]

I am glad I do not have your interpreter.

Peace

[mick]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am glad I do not have your interpreter.

Peace

I agree, Rut.
That "interpreter" is doing an injustice to his officials, ... or there is more to his explanation than "NO touching Zero".

[refnrev]

Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan

Our interpreter has said NO touching Zero.

____________________________

Sounds like a little overkill to me.

[zeedonk]

We have our interpretation meeting this week (for cadets). I'm sure this issue will come up. Our various mentors have said a lot of the same that has been discussed here- "east/west", "advantage/disadvantage", "two hands", "one hand", "directing the dribbler" etc...

I have been trying to stay in a position where I can see through the players and be right on top of the play, so if I have a call, I'm not across the court. So far, I've been going with the hybrid of "adv/disadv"/"directing the dribbler" theory. If I see two hands, I'll get it immediately (at least I like to think I do...)

If our interpreter says "No hands" then that's what I'll do this year- but I'll pregame it and bark about it to coaches and players as much as I can... so they know...

Describing the rule seems to be like describing pornography (not that they are the same!) -> you know it when you see it.