Hand checking

[Adam]

Originally Posted by refiator

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.

I disagree. If you decide to allow the dribbler to play through because he beat his defender, then you can't go back and call an earlier foul and count the basket (I'm making an assumption here from your post, so correct me if I'm wrong.)

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I disagree. If you decide to allow the dribbler to play through because he beat his defender, then you can't go back and call an earlier foul and count the basket (I'm making an assumption here from your post, so correct me if I'm wrong.)

+1 He played through the contact. Unless the contact continued up to the pick up of the dribble as part of the layup attempt.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

+1 He played through the contact. Unless the contact continued up to the pick up of the dribble as part of the layup attempt.

And this is why all hand checking is not called and never will be and probably shouldn't be.

If a player has his hand on a ball handler, are we calling a foul or waiting a beat to see how the ball handler reacts to the hand? Then once the player passes the ball or beats the defender, we have no reason to call the foul.

A quick hand-checking whistle accomplishes what? It stops the game unnecessarily and in some cases deprives the offense of a chance to beat the defender and score an easy basket.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

And this is why all hand checking is not called and never will be and probably shouldn't be.

If a player has his hand on a ball handler, are we calling a foul or waiting a beat to see how the ball handler reacts to the hand? Then once the player passes the ball or beats the defender, we have no reason to call the foul.

A quick hand-checking whistle accomplishes what? It stops the game unnecessarily and in some cases deprives the offense of a chance to beat the defender and score an easy basket.

And what I hate, is the reaction out front when the offensive player pushes off the defender. Maybe a double foul in such an instance? I probably just need to be more diligent out front with hand check calls where it seems to occur most often.

[just another ref]

To simplify: If it wasn't gaining him an advantage, he wouldn't do it. If it ever gets called a foul, he really wouldn't do it. So call it, then after that, nobody will do it any more, and this debate will be over.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

To simplify: If it wasn't gaining him an advantage, he wouldn't do it. If it ever gets called a foul, he really wouldn't do it. So call it, then after that, nobody will do it any more, and this debate will be over.

So we should call fouls that are not fouls under any rulebook definition to get someone to stop doing something?

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So we should call fouls that are not fouls under any rulebook definition to get someone to stop doing something?

Peace

Read the definition again, and tell me how it isn't a foul.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Basketball is a "non-contact" sport. What does that statement mean? It means that a player is not allowed to illegally contact an oppenent to gain an advantage not allowed by rule.

I think, that basketball officials, as a whole, have a pretty good handle on what is illegal contact, what is legal contact, and what is incidental contact. I also think, that basketball officials, as a whole, understand "hand checking".

The problem is how we handle the following plays, which is a pretty inclusive example of the situation we all face.

NOTE: Remember, the hands are meant to be used to shoot the ball, pass the ball, dribble the ball, block a shot, block a pass, grab a rebound, or a lose ball.


PLAY 1: A1 is holding a live ball or dribbling the ball while stationary, and B1 repeatedly reaches out and touches A1 with one or both hands.

QUESTION 1: Has B1 comitted a personal foul?

As a "bald old geezer" I consider B1's actions a PF. I can see no reason for B1 to have to reach out and touch A1, a player who is standing right in front of him.


PLAY 2: B2, within the time and distance parameters, sets a blind screen against a moving A1. A1 uses his hind to reach out and feel for any players setting a blind screen against him. When A1's hand makes contact with B2, A1 stops.

QUESTION 2a: Based upon the definition of screening, A1 has not committed a PF.

COMMENT 2: This is an iffy play for me. Why? Lets assume (and we all knows what happens when one makes an assumption), non the less, Team B could be running a playe to draw a foul by A1 (A1 is moving so fast that he will not be able to stop after making body to body contact with B2 and run right thru him) and by using his hands to feel for B2, A1 is able to slow down and either stop upon body to body contact or move around B2.

QUESTION 2b: Has A1 gained an advantage not allowed by the rules in the play in the above COMMENT?


As they say in NASCAR: "Boys have at it."

MTD, Sr.


P.S. I didn't want to say I was "old school" because that would bring up nightmares for some of us long time contributors to this Forum.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Read the definition again, and tell me how it isn't a foul.

4-27-3 says: "Contact, which similarly may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive and offensive movements, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe."

4-27-4 says: "Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating defensive or offensive movement should be considered incidental."

Unless I missed something in the actual rulebook, I do not see a thing that says anything about two hands being a foul or not being a foul by rule. Of course the action can and often does affect the player, but these comments above are actually in the rulebook, not in a POE that might not even be in the rulebook in the future. My point is change the rule and you might get us all to agree. But when you just give a guideline, that is all it is, a guideline. When I even read people say that they use the NCAA-W, that is a guideline, not a rule. Just like the "Absolutes" are guidelines in NCAA Men's basketball.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I didn't want to say I was "old school" because that would bring up nightmares for some of us long time contributors to this Forum.

Just don't say it three time in a row.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Unless I missed something in the actual rulebook, I do not see a thing that says anything about two hands being a foul or not being a foul by rule.

4-19-1: A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements.

10-6-2: A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand.......



The opinion has been expressed that if the hand is placed on the opponent for an extended length of time, it does provide an advantage, whether the movement of the opponent is obviously affected or not. Given this opinion, it is no trouble to call a foul for even a very slight contact with an extended hand and still find rules support.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4-19-1: A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements.

10-6-2: A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand.......



The opinion has been expressed that if the hand is placed on the opponent for an extended length of time, it does provide an advantage, whether the movement of the opponent is obviously affected or not. Given this opinion, it is no trouble to call a foul for even a very slight contact with an extended hand and still find rules support.

Depends if this "opinion" is agreed with or not, doesn't it?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Basketball is a "non-contact" sport. What does that statement mean? It means that a player is not allowed to illegally contact an oppenent to gain an advantage not allowed by rule.

I think, that basketball officials, as a whole, have a pretty good handle on what is illegal contact, what is legal contact, and what is incidental contact. I also think, that basketball officials, as a whole, understand "hand checking".

The problem is how we handle the following plays, which is a pretty inclusive example of the situation we all face.

NOTE: Remember, the hands are meant to be used to shoot the ball, pass the ball, dribble the ball, block a shot, block a pass, grab a rebound, or a lose ball.


PLAY 1: A1 is holding a live ball or dribbling the ball while stationary, and B1 repeatedly reaches out and touches A1 with one or both hands.

QUESTION 1: Has B1 comitted a personal foul?

As a "bald old geezer" I consider B1's actions a PF. I can see no reason for B1 to have to reach out and touch A1, a player who is standing right in front of him.


PLAY 2: B2, within the time and distance parameters, sets a blind screen against a moving A1. A1 uses his hind to reach out and feel for any players setting a blind screen against him. When A1's hand makes contact with B2, A1 stops.

QUESTION 2a: Based upon the definition of screening, A1 has not committed a PF.

COMMENT 2: This is an iffy play for me. Why? Lets assume (and we all knows what happens when one makes an assumption), non the less, Team B could be running a playe to draw a foul by A1 (A1 is moving so fast that he will not be able to stop after making body to body contact with B2 and run right thru him) and by using his hands to feel for B2, A1 is able to slow down and either stop upon body to body contact or move around B2.

QUESTION 2b: Has A1 gained an advantage not allowed by the rules in the play in the above COMMENT?


As they say in NASCAR: "Boys have at it."

MTD, Sr.


P.S. I didn't want to say I was "old school" because that would bring up nightmares for some of us long time contributors to this Forum.

Play 1: I'm talking to the kid first.

Play 2: No way that's a foul.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Basketball is a "non-contact" sport.

This is a myth, as surely as "over the back" is a mythical foul.

Read NFHS 4-27. As always -- always -- it's essential to know our definitions if we want to know our game.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

An assignor who would call and blast an official for making a correct call???? Where in the world would you ever have run into such a thing?