Hand checking
 

Let me start by saying that I know by rule hand checking is a foul. There are people that enforce it differently however. Player A dribbling down sideline around mid-court Player B defending has her hand on player A. Player B's arm is not fully extended. She is not forcing her out, impeding her progress forward or to the side and is not placing the offensive player as a disadvantage. I know by rule it's a foul, would you let it go? I did.

Coach didn't like it. 8th grade girls. My explanation to him was contact does not constitute a foul. Your player was not at a disadvantage and was allowed her normal path. Would anyone handle differently? Under the basket I might have called it differently(I didn't tell him that)

By rule how? Fouls are not to be called unless there is displacement or some advantage is gained. They did not throw out all the other rules for foul calling because there is a description of a hand check. I only call a foul when the Rhythm, Speed, Balance, or Quickness is changed by the contact. If they play through it I let it go. At that level it is not difficult to have those things changed as I am sure the girls can barely stand and chew gum without falling down. Stop worrying about what an 8th Grade coach thinks anyway. :p

Peace

I pretty much agree with Rut, but let me add that with hand checking it's sometimes difficult to tell if there's any advantage or redirection going on. If she leaves the hand on for a while, I'm <strike>likely to be</strike> forced to assume it's a foul.

There's no need for it to be there, and once you call it they'll make it easier for you.

If the "hand check" doesn't affect ball handlers RSBQ nor puts them at a disadvantage, by rule, how can it be a foul?

Why would you call it differently "under the basket?" Surely, more contact will occur the closer the action gets to the rim.

The only thing I'd do differently is call hand checks a push below the FT line extended.

That's absolutely ridiculous. :rolleyes: You're really going to call a foul using as one of the criteria where it occurs on the court?

We've had almost yearly POE's from the NFHS telling us to call handchecking. That includes THIS year. We also have almost yearly POE's telling us not to make up our own rules. And that also includes THIS year. Obviously, though, it just ain't sinking in.

Lah me....

Disagree. If they put a hand on and keep it on, I'm calling it. Every time.

A few centuries ago, when I was in HS, we played basketball in PE class. One of the kids said he was going to start putting his hand on the player he was defending all the time because he saw it happen on the NBA (since this was during the Cousy/Russell era, it was still the NBA, not the NBE) games on television. He started doing it and only stopped when another kid told him that if he did it to him, he'd knock his teeth down his throat. At my HS, that was not a joke. He stopped immediately.

A veteran official once told me to look at hand checking like coming to a Yield sign when entering onto the highway. If you affect either the speed or the direction of the oncoming traffic, you haven't yielded and you are illegal. If you don't affect either their speed or their direction when you enter, you are legal.

Here we go again.

You are right that it's called differently in different areas / by different officials. Some subscribe to the "if it doesn't affect RSBQ, it's not a foul." Some say "it's legal when going east-west, but not north-south."

The clearest explanation is from NCAAW (paraphrased): There are two types of fouls. Contact which causes an advantage, and handchecking. Any handchecking (two hands, one hand for more than a "hot stove" touch, one hand repeatedly) is a foul, regardless of any effect on RSBQ.

But, how (or whether) to apply that to an 8th-grade girls game is open to interpretation.

Call the hand-checks early and they will stop. Makes a cleaner, flowing game.

Even when they go right around the defender for the dunk? I hope you put him on the line for 1 shot...

OK. I still want an advantage and will continue to call it that way. For the record, I call three or four of these fouls easily a game personally when a team is pressuring the ball in the half-court. It does not take much, but if a player beats the hands put on them I am still not calling a foul. The incidental contact rules did not change all of a sudden for this foul.

Peace

I don't care about what the coach thinks. I stopped caring long ago. Just looking for an opinion. Basically to reaffirm I made the correct call.In Wisconsin before the start of the season, hand-checking was a point of emphasis, but I still wouldn't call this a foul. Side note- there are some pretty talented 8th grade teams in my area, both boys and girls.

Not really the problem in the OP, though, where the dribbler was moving down the sideline around midcourt.

Just because you have some talented teams does not mean they can play the same level of a high school or college player either. They just are not as coordinated and savvy.

Don't be so offended when the reality is that most coaches at this level are clueless about what is or is not a foul. Again, you mentioned the level. ;)

Peace

The only reason I said I might call it different undereneath is the play there is different. Underneath handchecks are more likely to impede offense and cause them to be at a disadvantage. If I have the same exact play underneath as on the sideline, of course I'm not going to call it. I guess sometimes I misinterpret what I am actually trying to say. Sorry.

Glad I dont do that brand of ball. My #1 line (mere contact doesnt constitute a foul, coach) would be useless.

I agree Snaqs, I was speaking on the "absolute" JR stated:

Most of the people I work with regularly pre-game that once a post player turns and faces the basket, they are a ball handler and they are treated just as we would treat a guard looking to drive from the top of the key.

As far as the contact on the ball handler anywhere, I find that the "hot stove touch" way of looking at things the NCAA women started using a few years ago helps me be much consistent with contact on the ball handler.

To me, this is possibly the most important aspect to beginning a game. If your guards can move freely, without being bumped and grabbed, you'll have a smooth night. The nights where things get physical out front are the nights that are tougher to manage for me.

Superbly worded advice. Thanks, Bob.

You still working games?

+1

And afaik NCAAM and the NFHS want it called exactly the same way as NCAAW.

I agree that all contact is not a foul and that adv./disadv. applies. How am I supposed to interpret this and previous year's POE?

A. Hand checking.

1) Hand checking is any tactic using the hands or arms that allows a player, on offense or defense, to control (hold, impede, push, divert, slow or prevent) the movement of an opposing player. This is a good def. of adv/disadv
2) Hand checking is a foul and is not incidental contact.
3) Defensive players shall not have hand(s) on the offensive player. When a player has a hand on, two hands on or jabs a hand or forearm on an opponent, it is a foul. Seems to expand on what is said in 1) above

Handchecking is used by the defender to measure the opponent. It allows the defender to supplement his sense of sight with his sense of touch to anticipate the movement of that opponent. Done properly it can provide a great advantage to the defender, even though the actual contact may be minimal.

Here's another old NFHS POE on handchecking...

"Regardless of where it takes place on the floor, when a player continuously places a hand on an opposing player, it is a foul."

"When a player places both hands on an opponent, it is a foul."

And next year, no doubt we'll see a similar new POE because of all the officials that want to make up their own rules and ignore what the FED has been tellings to call for years.

Rule 4-27-3 is an even better definition, IMO, of advantage/disadvantage.

I don't think 1 is a definition. It does seem to say that it's not a foul unless there is an advantage.

Item 3 seems, to me, to say it's a foul regardless of advantage.

So, I think items 1 and 3 conflict.

Think it will be a POE in 2011-12? I am leaning that way.

Just like the boy who cried wolf.... :D

I like it when they try to circumvent this rule by holding -- not jabbing -- a forearm into an opponent.

POEs are not rules. If they want to change the rule then change it. But until then incidental contact rules apply, I am not calling this just because someone touched. I am calling a foul when an advantage is gained, PERIOD.

At the Men's side also this is what we call an absolute, but still they ask for some level of RSBQ to call it. That is what I do and it works for me.

Peace

When I played (yes I played, and I played for a coach who was a H.S. basketball official himself (I have told the story before) and who's teams won 16 league championships in 21 years (I played on 2 of them), a defender did NOT put his hand(s) on the offensive player who is in control the ball for any reason. AND I still canNOT understand why a defender needs to put his hand(s) on the offensive player who is in control the ball. The player in control of the ball is right in front the defender to see and there is absolutely NO need for the defender to put his hand(s) on the player who is in control of the ball.

MTD, Sr.

+1

All it does is make it easier to re-direct, by having your hand in place already, if the ball handler decides to go in a direction you don't like.

MARK - As a "serial hand checker" in college back in the day (when it was 'allowed') I can tell you that you can manipulate a ball handler occasionally based on pressure points on the hip. Plus, if you keep your hand on their hip and they have the ball on one side of their body, you have reduced the number of options available to the ball handler.
Now in the modern era, I HATE calling a "double hot stove" 40 feet from the basket when the ball handler is just standing there. But as I told more then one coach "I don't make the rules, I just enforce em".
Also, a certain former UCONN player has mastered the art of making the "hot stove touch" a "hot stove jab". :mad:

Found This My Hard Drive ...
 

Places both hands on a ball-handler, it is a foul. Continuously places a hand on the ball-handler, it is a foul.
Continuously jabs a hand or forearm on a ball-handler, it is a foul. Remember RSBQ. If the dribbler’s
Rhythm, Speed, Balance, or Quickness are affected, we should have a hand-checking foul.

Snaqs and Judtech:

My question was a rhetorical question. There is absolutely NO reason for a defender to put his hands on the ball handler PERIOD. To do so is a FOUL.

MTD, Sr.

I knew that and agreed with your point.

Chalk me up on the side of it is a foul to hand check.

Advantage/Disadvantage does not come into play because it is obviously an advantage to hand check. Anyone who has ever played knows this.

Why would a defender put his/her hands on their opponent if it was not an advantage? Why would the defender take a chance on having a foul called if it was not an advantage? As a player, when I was younger if a defensive player put his hands on me it would start with yelling to get your hands off and if that did not work things would escalate. I have changed with age but it was an advantage in those days and still is.

As a ref, I agree with Bob and use the college women's advice. I allow the 'hot stove' touch but call the foul when the hand stays on. Just like any foul call once the players understand how things will be called they adjust.

Refs not understanding that this is a foul is one of the reasons the game has often deteriorated into clutching and grabbing and the speed and quickness of the game has often times been lost.

I know this is an area that I need to improve. I probably call a hand check once or twice a game in 2 out of 3 games I officiate. I know it occurs more often than that.

That is direct conflict with 4-27-3. So there still has to be an advantage for a foul or you are not following a rule. I have never heard how POEs or language in POEs trump actual rules language.

Why is not part of the rule. ;)

As a ref, I agree with Bob and use the college women's advice. I allow the 'hot stove' touch but call the foul when the hand stays on. Just like any foul call once the players understand how things will be called they adjust.[/QUOTE]

That works if yoiu are working NCAA Women's basketball as that is the standard. Not the standard at the NCAA Men's level or the NF. At least the NCAA Men's standard wants an advantage and is not in total contradiction of the incidental contact rule.

That might be true, but calling fouls when nothing happens to the player is not what the rules suggests either.

Peace

I think that it is more of a case that refs who actually call the hand-checking the way it is written and should be enforced get in trouble with their assignors. 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. So the next game, they let that handchecking go...

Coaches yell and scream for us to call handchecks on their opponent, but when we call it on them they yell and scream that it is ticky-tack (or whatever word they use).

So some of us have adopted the NCAA-W interp into our HS games...

+1 That was my experience when I played as well even though at that time hand checking was relatively rare.

4-27-3... contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.

I think this is the main point being argued , does hand checking 'hinder'. I believe so and I think the NFHS does also since they keep putting it in the POEs. In my short time as a ref, it seems to me that hand checking usually leads to something akin to WWE smackdown on the low post, and escalating fouls on the guards. If we nail 'em, they'll stop.

This is my impression as well. I think their complaints gain some force (but only some) from the inconsistency with which officials call handchecks.

I would like to see our association work on consistency for next season, and to communicate to area coaches what's a handcheck and what isn't.

The NCAAW criteria are admirably clear and consistent with the NFHS rule. They're worth adopting explicitly IMO.

Hand checking and touching are not the same thing. Hand checking is a foul. That part is not being debated at all. What is being debated is when it takes place.

Peace

I agree! And whether I'm assigned the position of R or the U99 I like to have the crew define what handchecks will be tonight. Since bringing that up in pregame, I've noticed more consistency during the game.

I THINK I agree with you. From the aspect of an official I do. From the aspect of a player, I may disagree. But since this is an offiicals board, the jury says: AGREE:D

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.)

+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.

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.

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

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

Basketball is a "non-contact" sport.
 

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.

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

Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice ...
 

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

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...4c087c4699e2fa

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?

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

Play 2: No way that's a foul.

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.

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? :eek:

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.

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

Yep.

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

Agree. Kinda like belts.



Kinda like blarges.

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.

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

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

Peace

officiating.com :D



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? :eek:

Peace

Never mind, Rut.

You can run along now. :)

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.:o

Same here.

How in the heck do I get blamed for even this part of the conversation? <a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253F partner%253DZSzeb008%255F%2526i%253D36%252F36%255F 19%255F1%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_19_1.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0"><img border="0" src="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fimgfarm%252Ecom%252Fimages%252F nocache%252Ftr%252Ffw%252Fsmiley%252Fsocial%252Egi f%253Fi%253D36%252F36_19_1%2526uiv%253D3.0/image.gif"></a>

Peace

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.

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.

+1

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

Mark T - I will disagree with your premise, but love your plays.
As it was once explained to me and I agree with it more every year:
"Basketball IS a contact sport. Basketball is NOT a collision sport".

Play 1: Foul. HATE calling it, but I don't make em just call em. This type of play is excplicitly gone over every year.
Play 2: Incidental.

I would much rather have the NFHS go back and review some of the "questionable" (and I'm being nice) interpretations they've released recently rather than make an editorial change that 1.) no one will notice, and 2.) won't change how the play is called because there's only one person in the officiating community who has any problem with the universally accepted application of this rule.

Oh, I wasn't prioritizing. I agree completely with you.

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.

Judtech:

Let me direct you to my response (See Post #79, 03:14pmEST) to Scrapper who expresses the same sentiment as you do. You did not read the next two sentences of my post to which you are responding.

MTD, Sr.

APG:

If you don't notice it you are not doing your job of studying the necessary material to be a competent official.

If you are a competent (and I assume you are because you do care enough to read the stuff that is posted here and to make your opinions known) official you will officiate the game per the requirements of the interpretation. Because if you do not, then you are part of the problem not part of the solution.

MTD, Sr.

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.

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

Perhaps you didn't get the point I was trying to get across.

If for some reason, NFHS decided to make an editoral change in regards to changing "calling" to "preliminary signal" the general officiating would hardly notice because it's never been an issue for just about anyone.

And I never said I wouldn't officiate the game according to the interpretations given by NFHS and quite frankly I don't know where you got the idea that I didn't. All I said is the NFHS has handed out some silly interpretations recently (backcourt violation anyone) and that I would rather them spend time fixing those than an unnecessary editorial change.