Hand checking

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, 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.

No, only one, and he can't seem to let it die.