Hand checking

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

Scrapper:

Like most coaches who do not ever read the entire definition of guarding, you did not read the next two sentences of my post:

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.

Of course there is going to be contact in a sport played by ten players on a court only 50 feet wide and 84 or 94 feet in length.

MTD, Sr.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Of course there is going to be contact in a sport played by ten players on a court only 50 feet wide and 84 or 94 feet in length.
.

Then it's not "non-contact", is it?

Golf is a non-contact sport. Tennis is a non-contact sport. Basketball, by definition, allows lots of contact, including some types of "severe" contact.

Your previous statement is simply not true and perpetuates a myth, just like officials who talk about "over the back" fouls.

In reference to the two sentences that attempt to define "non-contact", all I can say is that what you wrote is not what "non-contact" means, which is why I ignored it.