Handchecking
 

Just wondering what your philosophy is on handchecking. Most guys I've worked with this season have said that they will call the foul not necessarily as soon as the defender puts his hands on the offensive player, but rather if B1's hands start to guide A1.

Do you apply advantage/disadvantage here?

If you don't get it early, it will be a problem all game. Many will admonish "Hands off" before making a call, but not every time down the floor. Look over the POE.

I call it when the ball handler's Rhythm, Speed, Balance or Quickness is affected. I do not call touching and it does not take a lot to call it.

Peace

Yep. IOW, if the ball handler is disadvantaged in any way, I'll call it. Benefit of the doubt typically goes towards a foul call.

2010-11 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

1. Rules Enforcement
2. Sportsmanship
3. Perimeter Play (*)
4. Closely-guarded Situations
5. Principle of Verticality

Along with what you've already heard, a good explanation of what the FED is looking for can also be found in this yr's POEs.

I knew it was a POE, but it also says that any time a defender places his hand(s) on the offensive player it is a foul.

Obviously, we don't always operate that way.

I had this last night. First possession of the game, A1 has the ball near the division line. He starts to dribble toward the three point line. B1 maybe handchecked, maybe he didn't. I was straightlined from that. A1 coach asks right away..."Are you gonna call handchecking tonight??"

How do you explain the A/D concept to a coach?

You don't give them a clinic. I'd ignore that. The coach doesn't get an answer just because he's playing jeapordy.

You can't because their A/D is considerably different than yours.

I am not a fan of the A/D concept. I wish there was another way to refer to that concept because it definitley applies to the game. Especially at higher levels with better athletes. But, when you put words around it, it almost always seems to be interpreted incorrectly.

The A/D concept is used frequently to excuse a no-call that should have been called. It lulls us into not using our whistle when needed. It is not an easy thing to understand or apply. To me, it is a thing that even when (partially for me) understood is still hard to put into words.

I only felt good about applying A/D in a game when I quit trying to apply A/D to calls and made calls according to my understanding of the rules. The A/D followed.

A/D is in the rules. It's just shorthand for 4-27-3. "Contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."

Intent And Purpose ...
 

Furthermore:

Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be
permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be
permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not
intended by a rule.

From My Notes ...
 

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.

I use the same philosophy as Billy on this and would add when the ball handler has had Rhythm, Speed, Balance or Quickness visibly affected by the handcheck.

And one hand on and then off is a judgment call as to advantage/disadvantage.

And so it is written...and so it shall be...under both NCAA and NFHS rules.

Camp speak for advantage/disadvantage.

Just saying.....

that was incidental contact, coach. No advantage gained.

And if he doesn't accept that and continues to question you, deal with it.

I had a coach that was a piece of work all night last night. First thing he tells me is that it's a point of emphasis to call hand-checking. He wouldn't know a hand-check it if bit him in the backside. Completely incidental contact -- mainly he was complaining because the other team was trapping and pressing and they couldn't beat it.

Then he starts a sentence with, "My theory is that it's a foul...." and I couldn't help it -- I was laughing as I walked away.

To your credit, you restrained yourself and didn't respond with "My theory is that you're full of sh!t". :D

He gave a two handed wave to my back, I was told after the game. My partner was restrained himself -- he would've whacked him for it, but we were under two minutes and we both were trying to get done and get out by that point. I was fine with that.

Of course we called 5 fouls on this guy's team in the last 2 minutes -- down over 20 they decided to foul to stop the clock. :rolleyes:

Anne Elk also had a theory.

Well said
 

That single refernece is the best description I have seen yet about coaches and their knowledge of the rules. I laughed out loud when I read your comment.

Actually this is not camp speak at the NCAA level, that is the philosophy as to how to call it. And when people used advantage/disadvantage people would us other things to make this call (going north or south, could the player complete the play). It is a little more than something you hear at a camp. ;)

Peace

Advantage/disadvantage has been the philosophy used in the NCAA for the last 50 years when it comes to hand checking. And they've used RBSQ for the last 50 years also in the NCAA to determine that advantage/disadvantage.

RSBQ can be summed up as "did the hand-check put an opponent at a disadvantage?"

Same old, same old. Nothing new at all but the terminology. But hey, if someone feels they've discovered the latest and greatest advance in officiating knowledge, who am I to spoil their party? Let 'em RSBQ away to their heart's content.

I was going to say, "In the words of Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it." I didn't want his head to explode.

+1

My only point is people used many different criteria and I think it left with more inconsistency in the way it was being called. This in my opinion is a more precise way to define when it should be called. And hand-checking has only been defined in the rules the last 10 years or as to how this is to be called or a whether that action is clearly a foul. I could say that that advantage/disadvantage is a newer term for the Tower principle, not sure what any of that has to do with camps. Many of these things I have heard for years had nothing to do with camps.

Peace

If it better describes the desired way in which the calls should be made, then it is not "Same old, same old". And in my opinion, it describes a much more clear set of criteria to determine if a foul has been committed than the very generic A/D. A/D is open to a much wider range of interpretation than RSBQ. RSBQ actually defines what constitutes A/D.

Wasn't this game last week and were you my partner? (I could have posted EXACTLY that same post). Only difference, is that he shut up after halftime (perhaps because the other team pulled off the press...but still crushed them)

The 'camp speak' I am familiar with is "Hot Stove"
The defender gets 1 "Hot Stove" touch and then hands off.
Unfortunately, my wife has apparently found those camp notes and feels the same should apply at home!!! :cool: (Ty I'll be here all week and Reno and the 20th, be sure to tip your waiters and waitresses)
2 Hands is automatic whistle. I dont' like calling it 35' from the basket when a player is just standing there, but I don't write the rules, (Jur Ref would say I don't read them very much either!) I just enforce em!

If you are going to be in Reno, you'll have a partner who overreads the rules, so you should be all set.

Jeff, hand-checking was addressed in the rules in the 1970's and they had case book plays then specifically telling us how to call it. At that time we were supposed to immediately call a foul if a defender put a hand on an opponent. It was strictly "hands off". That calling philosophy loosened up to using advantage/disadvantage if a hand went on. Two hands has always been a foul.

And the Tower Principle came out before that.

RSBQ is just paraphrasing the concepts used in the Tower Philosophy. It's just another way to state what officials have been actually using for umpty-ump years.

That's all I'm saying.

Trainers have been using the exact same criteria as RSBQ for umpteen years while trying to explain advantage/disadvantage.I was one of them.

Same concept, different words.