+1

All it does is make it easier to re-direct, by having your hand in place already, if the ball handler decides to go in a direction you don't like.

MARK - As a "serial hand checker" in college back in the day (when it was 'allowed') I can tell you that you can manipulate a ball handler occasionally based on pressure points on the hip. Plus, if you keep your hand on their hip and they have the ball on one side of their body, you have reduced the number of options available to the ball handler.
Now in the modern era, I HATE calling a "double hot stove" 40 feet from the basket when the ball handler is just standing there. But as I told more then one coach "I don't make the rules, I just enforce em".
Also, a certain former UCONN player has mastered the art of making the "hot stove touch" a "hot stove jab". :mad:

Found This My Hard Drive ...
 

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. Remember RSBQ. If the dribbler’s
Rhythm, Speed, Balance, or Quickness are affected, we should have a hand-checking foul.

Snaqs and Judtech:

My question was a rhetorical question. There is absolutely NO reason for a defender to put his hands on the ball handler PERIOD. To do so is a FOUL.

MTD, Sr.

I knew that and agreed with your point.

Chalk me up on the side of it is a foul to hand check.

Advantage/Disadvantage does not come into play because it is obviously an advantage to hand check. Anyone who has ever played knows this.

Why would a defender put his/her hands on their opponent if it was not an advantage? Why would the defender take a chance on having a foul called if it was not an advantage? As a player, when I was younger if a defensive player put his hands on me it would start with yelling to get your hands off and if that did not work things would escalate. I have changed with age but it was an advantage in those days and still is.

As a ref, I agree with Bob and use the college women's advice. I allow the 'hot stove' touch but call the foul when the hand stays on. Just like any foul call once the players understand how things will be called they adjust.

Refs not understanding that this is a foul is one of the reasons the game has often deteriorated into clutching and grabbing and the speed and quickness of the game has often times been lost.

I know this is an area that I need to improve. I probably call a hand check once or twice a game in 2 out of 3 games I officiate. I know it occurs more often than that.

That is direct conflict with 4-27-3. So there still has to be an advantage for a foul or you are not following a rule. I have never heard how POEs or language in POEs trump actual rules language.

Why is not part of the rule. ;)

As a ref, I agree with Bob and use the college women's advice. I allow the 'hot stove' touch but call the foul when the hand stays on. Just like any foul call once the players understand how things will be called they adjust.[/QUOTE]

That works if yoiu are working NCAA Women's basketball as that is the standard. Not the standard at the NCAA Men's level or the NF. At least the NCAA Men's standard wants an advantage and is not in total contradiction of the incidental contact rule.

That might be true, but calling fouls when nothing happens to the player is not what the rules suggests either.

Peace

I think that it is more of a case that refs who actually call the hand-checking the way it is written and should be enforced get in trouble with their assignors. Coaches call and complain that the official is "calling too many fouls that don't have an impact on the play" and the officials get the dreaded call from the supervisor. So the next game, they let that handchecking go...

Coaches yell and scream for us to call handchecks on their opponent, but when we call it on them they yell and scream that it is ticky-tack (or whatever word they use).

So some of us have adopted the NCAA-W interp into our HS games...

+1 That was my experience when I played as well even though at that time hand checking was relatively rare.

4-27-3... contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.

I think this is the main point being argued , does hand checking 'hinder'. I believe so and I think the NFHS does also since they keep putting it in the POEs. In my short time as a ref, it seems to me that hand checking usually leads to something akin to WWE smackdown on the low post, and escalating fouls on the guards. If we nail 'em, they'll stop.

This is my impression as well. I think their complaints gain some force (but only some) from the inconsistency with which officials call handchecks.

I would like to see our association work on consistency for next season, and to communicate to area coaches what's a handcheck and what isn't.

The NCAAW criteria are admirably clear and consistent with the NFHS rule. They're worth adopting explicitly IMO.

Hand checking and touching are not the same thing. Hand checking is a foul. That part is not being debated at all. What is being debated is when it takes place.

Peace

I agree! And whether I'm assigned the position of R or the U99 I like to have the crew define what handchecks will be tonight. Since bringing that up in pregame, I've noticed more consistency during the game.

I THINK I agree with you. From the aspect of an official I do. From the aspect of a player, I may disagree. But since this is an offiicals board, the jury says: AGREE:D

You gotta call the "Hot Stove". First hand on may be OK, but after that, it is a hand check foul. It the player is driving, let them finish, but a foul call should follow.