Hand checking
 

In this month’s issue of Referee Magazine, I noticed an article “Hand checking: Get RID of it”. Regarding the high school level the article stated “Defenders are not permitted to have hands on the dribbler or offensive players away from the ball.”
My question pertains to advice I have been given from some experienced officials that I should only call a foul if the defensive player is “gaining an advantage” from the hand check. Since the term “gaining an advantage” is defined differently from one official to the next, how do you handle hand checking, so that I can make correct calls this year regarding this subject?
Thanks for your input, it is appreciated.

Hot Stove
 

We are teaching and emphasizing that the defender is allowed one "hot stove" touch on the ball handler. After that it is a hand check foul. Although a hand check may not necessarily create an advantage, it is a point of emphasize again this year in an effort to eliminate it.

This is a move that sometimes creates an advantage that is hard to determine.

Try to think of the same philosophy that pertains to "Yield" signs on a public street. You didn't properly yield if you caused the other vehicle to alter it's speed and/or direction. If a hand check causes the ball handler to alter his or her speed and/or direction, it's a foul.

Of course, this is just a rule of thumb. (imagine cute thumb icon here)

Use the RSBQ principle which stands for Rhythm Speed Balance and Quickness. If any of these are affected then you call a foul. If the forearm is marginal or is on the players hip once he has got even with him leave it alone as he has already beat the player and has a lane to the basket. Two hands should always be called and a repetitive tactile touch should be called as well. Always recognize the difference in a hand that is used to "size" up the player and a hand that is used to affect the dribblers intended path or freedom of movement.

"Tactile touch" seems a bit repetitive in itself. What exactly would a non-tactile touch be? :D

Our association has been instructed differently. We have been instructed that the first "size up" is allowable, but as soon as the second "size up" happens between the same two players on the same possession, it's an easy and automatic foul.

I was told by the new D-1 official sitting next to me that this is the case in NCAA as well.

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.

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?

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

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

It was written above in the OP.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Our interpreter has said NO touching Zero.

I am glad I do not have your interpreter. :D

Peace

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

I see there are mixed feelings/options here about this topic. I like the NC2A-W POE this year on this:

Defense permitted one "hot-stove" touch. No arm-bars, no continual/continuous contact. No holding, reroutes or impedes with the body. Also, they speak about allowing "freedom of movement" as well.

I try to do as much preventive officiating before calling a hand-check. This is JMHO!!!!

I can see the 2001-2002 POE that was posted earlier - but - in the 2008-2009 POE this year the wording is different. I believe that there is additional guidance.

"Defenders are not permitted to have hands on the dribbler or offensive players away from the ball ............... Regardless of where it happens on the floor, when a player:
1. Continously places a hnad on the opposing player - it is a foul.
2. Places both hands on a player - it is a foul.
3. Continuously jabs a hand of forearm on an opponent - it is a foul."

This does not necessarily say that one "hot touch" to feel an opponent is a foul - as it is not continuous contact or continuous jabbing. JMO

A defender in the post area and the offensive player is just standing there and the play is nowhere near? I will not be putting air in my whistle.

My random thoughts (do I ever have any other kind?)
 

It will be interesting to see how much actual change this POE affects. Allowing too much hands-on defense is, I think, a chronic problem in the game. But it's also become "part of the game" and it's often difficult to justify calling "minor" hand check fouls when the rest of the game is often more physical and more significant contact is routinely let pass because no advantage was gained.

I also agree that it's often very difficult to determine how much of an effect that hand on the offensive player is having. If it's allowed to remain on the dribbler, how can you tell with certainty when he's being redirected? Sure, sometimes it's obvious; quite often it's not.

That said, one of my mentors gave me this very pragmatic bit of advice: Call the handchecks on the dribbler early. You want to free up the point guard especially to run the offense. That will make you game go better.

Having tried it both ways, I have to say that freeing up the point guard does make the game better. Usually.

BadNewsRef,
In your scenario, I will be talkin' ["54. Keep your hands off that guy."], because I don't wanna be watching them all night and waiting for the "That's enough!" retaliatory hand slap.

This usually happens when guards are hanging out down low, like in a stack offense where the guard starts on the block and then pops out. Big guys (i'm one) don't seem to have a problem with it. In fact bigs guys expect there to be someone touching them when they are in the paint area.

I agree with both Mick and BNR - my point was that the POE this year does NOT say that any touching with the hand is an immediate foul ....... "no touchinig - zero tolerance" I am always talking to the guys in the post "no hands", "hands off", "straight up" ........

If we are going to call the arm bar and a quick hand check, we need to be prepared to call an offensive foul in the paint. Just saying...

Why, do you not see this called?

____________________________

Sounds like a little overkill to me.:)

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.

Lot's Of Internet Action, But, Still, No Images ...
 

"If our interpreter says "No hands" then that's what I'll do this year". A variation would be, "When In Southern New Jersey, do what Southern New Jersey evaluators do".

Some other quotes regarding this rule:

"If a bird looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck", meaning, "if it looks like a foul, swims (?) like a foul, and quacks (?) like a foul, then it is probably a foul".

You can also cite the Elephant Test. That refers to the ability to recognize something while being unable to describe it. It may be derived from a version of the Indian tale of the Blind Men and an Elephant. The tale explains how six blind men each feel only one part of an elephant and come to argue that it is similar to a wall, a spear, a snake, a tree, a fan, and a rope, respectively: each has a completely different interpretation of what an elephant is like, and the complete description can only be derived by combining their information. In your version, you try to stay in a position where you can see through the players, to get a complete observation of the entire situation, combine that information, and make the correct call.

Regarding your pornography statement, "Close, but no cigar". It was obscenity, not pornography. The phrase, "I know it when I see it", is best known as a description of a threshold of obscenity, no longer used, which is not protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States constitution. Exhibition of obscene material may be a criminal offense. United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart used the phrase in his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964). He wrote: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

Please note that I can't take credit for the obscenity, not pornography, clarification. Another Forum member made this correction several years ago. Until his, or her, correction, I also thought it was pornography, not obscenity, that was covered in the Supreme Court decision. I can't remember who made this correction, to give them proper credit, probably one of our Forum pornography expert guys, you know, kind of like the correct spelling guy, or the correct grammar guy.

Careful lumping them all together Billy. That sort of thing could be pretty stigmatizing. Perhaps our local forum pornography expert wouldn't like to be painted with the same brush as those dubious spelling and grammar folks. ;)

Whomever said it has become part of the game...I agree, but I don't like it and don't think it has a place. It's easy to guard somebody with your hands....Defense is supposed to be played with your feet. I see more of it from the AAU kids than anybody else though.

I'm in the camp of adv/disadv...I do talk to them one time and then I will whistle it....and two hands is an automatic whistle when I'm officiating.

How are you supposed to block a shot? Kicking the ball is illegal. :D
(I am sorry, I just hate that term)

Peace

Some Think Basketball Was First Played By The Incas, By Kicking The Ball Into Basket
 

Good point.