Hand checking

[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