Advantage/Disadvantage

[chartrusepengui]

Coach: "wasn't that a handcheck? At the meeting they said it was a handcheck!"

Me: "did you hear my whistle?"

Coach: "no"

There's yer sign!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Agreed. Or even if it does affect the movement, to a degree, but doesn't make the player lose the ball.

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is not what I said. I think we are saying the same thing, but coming at it from different directions. In your play above, the dribbler may have been bumped slightly off line, but still had an open layup. Easy no call. Conversely, if the same bump takes place out at the top, the dribbler has no place to go, but the bump is not what prevented him from having a place to go. I still have a no call.

I knew what you meant, but was addressing the way I read it. You're right, if he wasn't anywhere anyway, it's a no-call. That said, that bump is more likely to get called. If I can't verify there was no effect, I'm likely to make the call by default.

I think, also, when I read the post originally, I somehow missed "to a degree." My only point was that losing the ball isn't the only way to get a foul here.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

To Fiasco's point: There are some words in the 2008-2009 rules book under "POE" that seem to take much of the judgment out of the hand-check foul.

Thanks, bob. I don't have my old rule book anymore. Can anyone post the wording bob's talking about?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Thanks, bob. I don't have my old rule book anymore. Can anyone post the wording bob's talking about?

I believe this is it:

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.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is the best way to understand the philosophy which also has rulebook backing. If the contact does not affect the movement or make a player lose the ball, then leave it alone. This takes some time to perfect and might take some time to be consistent. But a rebound is a good start.

Peace

How true. One of the areas where as a newer official I'm having difficulty. When watching the V game after my JV, it's one of the areas I focus on to see how the V guys officiate this part of the game. It's definitely an art IMO.
I read your post yesterday Rut, It helped put it into context for me. Tried to focus more on the affects of contact in my JV game earlier tonight. I felt I did a better job at letting them play, but felt that more than a couple of times I "fell asleep at the switch"....missed/passed on something I should have called and got myself in a hole. VC in my ear a lot, especially when I went to report a foul. Don't want to digress....just got to keep working at it.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I believe this is it:

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.

BITS, like Rut's post, I also found yours very helpful. I've also learned (the hard way) that I better be pre-gaming hand-checking with my partner. Again, (learning the hard way) I realize that if you call it early it tends to not be an issue as the game progresses....don't call it early, you've dug a hole that's tough to climb out of.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I believe this is it:

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.

To my mind, this statement is not saying that hand checks are in some sense "automatic" independent of whether they create an illegal advantage.

Rather, it gives examples of how hand checking creates an illegal advantage and thus why hand checks need to be called more.

Helping officials recognize advantage/disadvantage is different from announcing "automatic" fouls, IMO. Officials and coaches should not interpret this kind of statement as endorsing an "automatic" foul independent of advantage/disadvantage.

[Rich]

I've been consistently applying RSBQ thinking to all situations like this during the season and it's really worked for me. I don't know if I've had more hand checks or other fouls committed against dribblers, but I know better where my line is.

Coming to the end of the first half last night, I had a dribbler start towards the hoops and was directed away from the basket and I called a hand-check foul. It was just too much. The visiting coach said there's gotta be more there to work with and I let him make his comments -- the funny part is they had a foul to give and he subbed in to let this kid ride the kid and hoped he could have his cake and eat it too, I guess.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

To my mind, this statement is not saying that hand checks are in some sense "automatic" independent of whether they create an illegal advantage.

Rather, it gives examples of how hand checking creates an illegal advantage and thus why hand checks need to be called more.

Helping officials recognize advantage/disadvantage is different from announcing "automatic" fouls, IMO. Officials and coaches should not interpret this kind of statement as endorsing an "automatic" foul independent of advantage/disadvantage.

Disagree completely.

The FED is telling us through that POE that those examples are no-brainers. There's no judgment required at all and they ARE automatic foul calls. They emphasized that by issuing the statement that "hand-checking is NOT incidental contact." By stating that, they took the guesswork right out of the call.

You can either follow the FED's direction or decide not to. My recommendation is to check locally and then follow their direction.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by mbyron

To my mind, this statement is not saying that hand checks are in some sense "automatic" independent of whether they create an illegal advantage.

Rather, it gives examples of how hand checking creates an illegal advantage and thus why hand checks need to be called more.

Helping officials recognize advantage/disadvantage is different from announcing "automatic" fouls, IMO. Officials and coaches should not interpret this kind of statement as endorsing an "automatic" foul independent of advantage/disadvantage.

Really? Which parts of this:

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.

are vague?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Really? Which parts of this:



are vague?

The word continuously is open for interpretation. The only automatic I see is "two hands" and I've been calling this for years (as have my partners).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

How true. One of the areas where as a newer official I'm having difficulty. When watching the V game after my JV, it's one of the areas I focus on to see how the V guys officiate this part of the game. It's definitely an art IMO.
I read your post yesterday Rut, It helped put it into context for me. Tried to focus more on the affects of contact in my JV game earlier tonight. I felt I did a better job at letting them play, but felt that more than a couple of times I "fell asleep at the switch"....missed/passed on something I should have called and got myself in a hole. VC in my ear a lot, especially when I went to report a foul. Don't want to digress....just got to keep working at it.

I mentioned a standard progression that I've seen a lot of officials go through when learning and applying A/D.

1. New official, afraid to blow the whistle.
2. Not-as-new official, calls virtually everything he sees.
3. Discovers A/D, starts applying it but tends to let too much pass.
4. Begins to settle into an understanding of how to apply, improvement is steady at this point.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Disagree completely.

The FED is telling us through that POE that those examples are no-brainers. There's no judgment required at all and they ARE automatic foul calls. They emphasized that by issuing the statement that "hand-checking is NOT incidental contact." By stating that, they took the guesswork right out of the call.

You can either follow the FED's direction or decide not to. My recommendation is to check locally and then follow their direction.

The way I read it, NFHS is trying to tell us that the defender gains an advantage (whether we perceive it or not) automatically upon these three examples, and we are to call it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Disagree completely.

The FED is telling us through that POE that those examples are no-brainers. There's no judgment required at all and they ARE automatic foul calls. They emphasized that by issuing the statement that "hand-checking is NOT incidental contact." By stating that, they took the guesswork right out of the call.

You can either follow the FED's direction or decide not to. My recommendation is to check locally and then follow their direction.

The problem is these are not rules, they were guidelines. And it is not a foul unless you feel they fit the guidelines and does not conflict with the rules. Now just like anything else, we are judged on our judgment. I have never called these automatic, but I call a lot of hand-checks (more than most). And just because they say these are said to be fouls, does not mean there is no judgment involved either. The rules are clear what legal guarding position is, but we have people that have little ability to be consistent to call that part of the game correctly. I am still looking for some advantage to call these and may wait a second or two to see the advantage. No different than any other foul I may call. And if I call it, I can use the rules and the guidelines as a way to justify the call. That is all I am going to do and it works for me.

Peace

[dsqrddgd909]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I mentioned a standard progression that I've seen a lot of officials go through when learning and applying A/D.

1. New official, afraid to blow the whistle.
2. Not-as-new official, calls virtually everything he sees.
3. Discovers A/D, starts applying it but tends to let too much pass.
4. Begins to settle into an understanding of how to apply, improvement is steady at this point.

That's me - I think. Let too much hand checking go and let too much bumping of cutters go, as related to me by an assignor.