Hand Checking... Part !!

[NoFussRef]

Alright, since "Hand Checking" thread seemed to be so popular...


Fouling to stop the clock near end of regulation. B1 unable to get in front of A1 to foul, so B1 places both hands on A1's back. B1 has not made a play on the ball and is fouling to stop the clock.

Intentional?

-or-

Hand Check?

[JRutledge]

Not sure how this could be intentional unless you deem they were not playing the ball at all. Hard to say but not likely intentional in my opinion.

Peace

[NoFussRef]

Originally Posted by NoFussRef

Alright, since "Hand Checking" thread seemed to be so popular...


Fouling to stop the clock near end of regulation. B1 unable to get in front of A1 to foul, so B1 places both hands on A1's back. B1 has not made a play on the ball and is fouling to stop the clock.

Intentional?

-or-

Hand Check?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not sure how this could be intentional unless you deem they were not playing the ball at all. Hard to say but not likely intentional in my opinion.

Peace

?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by NoFussRef

B1 unable to get in front of A1 to foul, so B1 places both hands on A1's back. B1 has not made a play on the ball and is fouling to stop the clock.

Intentional?

-or-

Hand Check?

Judgment call. And as you have already judged above as highlighted that the defender didn't make a legitimate attempt to play the ball and only fouled to stop the clock, your only option by rule(NFHS R4-19-3) is to call an intentional personal foul.

Of course, others(JRut) might disagree with your judgment that the defender wasn't playing the ball.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Judgment call. And as you have already judged above as highlighted that the defender didn't make a legitimate attempt to play the ball and only fouled to stop the clock, your only option by rule(NFHS R4-19-3) is to call an intentional personal foul.

Of course, others(JRut) might disagree with your judgment that the defender wasn't playing the ball.

+1

Around here, the fouler gets considerable leeway. You'd have to wrap up the dribbler, grab jersey, or some (obvious) such to warrant an INT.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Of course, others(JRut) might disagree with your judgment that the defender wasn't playing the ball.

Do not make it sound like I just disagree with the call, I cannot imagine this as an intentional foul without seeing it.

Peace

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by mbyron

+1

Around here, the fouler gets considerable leeway.

Had one the other night in a local "competitive" Rec League, B18U Semi-Final Game. B1 commits a hard foul on A1 going down the lane and I called it. As I reported it, coach asked me about it and I told him I considered it "border-line" and told him it was just a hard foul.

Toward the end of the game, B1 near the division line gave the ole two-handed push to the back of A1 as he went passed him toward he hoop. I came in with the BIG X.

"I got it coach, I got it!"

[Scuba_ref]

The way I see it most handchecks are fouls where the defender is playing the offensive player's body and not the ball. When you have one or two hands on a defender and are directing or impeding his movement you really aren't playing the ball. So, if you called it intentional at the beginning of the game feel free to call it intentional at the end. Otherwise, regular old foul and move the game along.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

The way I see it most handchecks are fouls where the defender is playing the offensive player's body and not the ball. When you have one or two hands on a defender and are directing or impeding his movement you really aren't playing the ball. So, if you called it intentional at the beginning of the game feel free to call it intentional at the end. Otherwise, regular old foul and move the game along.

That would make sense if the rules committees considered this to be an intentional foul, but they don't. This action is an attempt to prevent the ball handler to go by them, this is not an intentional foul at all.

Peace

[Adam]

The OP begs a question: how do you know he's only stopping the clock? Is he doing something different than the other times he's handchecked during the game?


1. You've called several "hand checks" where the defender put two hands on ball handler.
2. End of game sitch, rather than foul, he puts his hands on the back of the ball handler (perhaps remembering you've called this a foul all game).
3. You can tell by looking at him (maybe he immediately looks to you to make a call when doing it) that he's only doing it to stop the clock and isn't even trying to play actual defense.

What's your call?

[Scuba_ref]

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

The way I see it most handchecks are fouls where the defender is playing the offensive player's body and not the ball. When you have one or two hands on a defender and are directing or impeding his movement you really aren't playing the ball. So, if you called it intentional at the beginning of the game feel free to call it intentional at the end. Otherwise, regular old foul and move the game along.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That would make sense if the rules committees considered this to be an intentional foul, but they don't. This action is an attempt to prevent the ball handler to go by them, this is not an intentional foul at all.

Peace

My point exactly...you wouldn't call this in the beginning of the game because as JRut states it isn't an intentional foul. Why consider calling what looks like handchecking something other than handchecking?