Hand checking

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

[B]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.

Um, yes, you sureasheck have been missing something in the actual rulebook.

You've been missing NFHS rule 10-6-2 which states "A player shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental in attempt to play the ball."

Pretty definitive, isn't it? But unfortunately, a lot of officials choose to ignore this rule. And that's why the NFHS has to issue almost yearly POE's to remind us they want it called.

[JRutledge]

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.

You are right, it is an opinion. Which means I and others can disagree with that opinion.

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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

Yep.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Um, yes, you sureasheck have been missing something in the actual rulebook.

You've been missing NFHS rule 10-6-2 which states "A player shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental in attempt to play the ball."

Pretty definitive, isn't it? But unfortunately, a lot of officials choose to ignore this rule. And that's why the NFHS has to issue almost yearly POE's to remind us they want it called.

That does not say two hands is a foul an one and is not.

And this is not an issue about ignoring anything (for me) this is if there is support that this is an automatic foul to have two hands on a player no matter what. There are rules that contradict each other even if I accept your position. If two hands is not incidental contact, then the rules should say that. It does not at this point.

I call at least one or two hand checks just about every single game I work. I can only think of one game where I probably did not have a single hand check this year. I am not arguing that it should be called; I am saying I do not agree with the definition that some want to say must be adhered to.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are right, it is an opinion. Which means I and others can disagree with that opinion.

Agree. Kinda like belts.

I am saying I do not agree with the definition that some want to say must be adhered to.

Kinda like blarges.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Agree. Kinda like belts.

You keep trying to bring that issue into every discussion. No, this has nothing to do with that discussion. Absolutely nothing to do with that discussion.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Kinda like blarges.

Nice try, but there are rules on this too.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You keep trying to bring that issue into every discussion. No, this has nothing to do with that discussion. Absolutely nothing to do with that discussion.



Nice try, but there are rules on this too.

Peace

The point was a big majority of the calls we make involve an opinion.

As for a comparison between a blarge and a handcheck , there was at least a POE which directly stated: "....when a player continuously places a hand on the opposing player, it is a foul." "When a player places both hands on an opposing player, it is a foul."

If there has ever been anything printed in any NFHS publication regarding a blarge which states anything about signals, preliminary or otherwise, I have yet to see it. Which means all this was somebody's interpretation. (opinion) But it ain't mine.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The point was a big majority of the calls we make involve an opinion.

As for a comparison between a blarge and a handcheck , there was at least a POE which directly stated: "....when a player continuously places a hand on the opposing player, it is a foul." "When a player places both hands on an opposing player, it is a foul."

That is great, but what do we do when it is not a POE? Where do we reference those rules?

Originally Posted by just another ref

If there has ever been anything printed in any NFHS publication regarding a blarge which states anything about signals, preliminary or otherwise, I have yet to see it. Which means all this was somebody's interpretation. (opinion) But it ain't mine.

I guess you have never seen 4.19.8 Situation C. Or is the casebook not a NF Publication?

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is great, but what do we do when it is not a POE? Where do we reference those rules?

officiating.com

I guess you have never seen 4.19.8 Situation C. Or is the casebook not a NF Publication?

Peace

Yeah, I'm vaguely familiar. Quote the part about signals, please.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

officiating.com

Yeah, I'm vaguely familiar. Quote the part about signals, please.

"One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the other officials calls a charging foul on A1."

I take it that if an official calls either foul, they signaled. You are really trying to pull this one out of your behind are you?

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

"One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the other officials calls a charging foul on A1."

I take it that if an official calls either foul, they signaled. You are really trying to pull this one out of your behind are you?

Peace

Never mind, Rut.

You can run along now.

[APG]

JAR,

Your one man crusade against the universally accepted application of the blarge is mind boggling.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

JAR,

Your one man crusade against the universally accepted application of the blarge is mind boggling.

Yeah, I had vowed not to go there any more, but, in my defense, he started it.


Sorry, warden.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

JAR,

Your one man crusade against the universally accepted application of the blarge is mind boggling.

Same here.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Yeah, I had vowed not to go there any more, but, in my defense, he started it.


Sorry, warden.

How in the heck do I get blamed for even this part of the conversation?

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

How in the heck do I get blamed for even this part of the conversation?

I actually thought it was a decent comparison. Your interpretation of a handcheck, to which you are certainly entitled is contrary to some. This is true even though a direct contradiction to your position has been published. Granted this publication is not readily available to the casual observer.

My position on a blarge is widely known, so bringing it up in any context is counterproductive. I vow to avoid it in the future.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

JAR,

Your one man crusade against the universally accepted application of the blarge is mind boggling.

OTOH, once some NFHS lurker makes an editorial change to the case book that wipes out the minute crevice of ambiguity where JAR lives, we'll all start calling it the JAR rule, and he'll be famous.

For the NFHS lurker: the editorial change would be to replace "calls" with "calls or gives a preliminary signal for" in the third sentence of 4.19.8 SITUATION C.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

JAR,

Your one man crusade against the universally accepted application of the blarge is mind boggling.

+1

Originally Posted by just another ref

Yeah, I had vowed not to go there any more, but, in my defense, he started it.


Sorry, warden.

Bull sh1t. You're the one who brought it up in an irrelevant context.