Advantage/Disadvantage

[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 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.

[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

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The problem is these are not rules, they were guidelines.

Disagree. They are "points of emphasis," meaning, they are areas of the rules the committee wants to emphasize. I think the committee intends POEs to be a little more stringent than you suggest.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Disagree. They are "points of emphasis," meaning, they are areas of the rules the committee wants to emphasize. I think the committee intends POEs to be a little more stringent than you suggest.

Can you show me where these things are in the current rulebook?

Peace

[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).