"Hand checks are NON shooting fouls!"

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have something against calling holds on shots for some reason. Usually call an "Illegal use of hands" on shooting fouls.

I can't say I see many holds on shots, either. It's typically a block, or "illegal contact," as we're instructed to call it. (I suppose all fouls are illegal contact, so it's hard to go wrong there.) I still can't rule out a hand check.

I've always tried to be precise with the type of foul, but I'm starting to get the impression most really don't care.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I can't say I see many holds on shots, either. It's typically a block, or "illegal contact," as we're instructed to call it. (I suppose all fouls are illegal contact, so it's hard to go wrong there.) I still can't rule out a hand check.

I've always tried to be precise with the type of foul, but I'm starting to get the impression most really don't care.

I don't get the impression that most don't care. I always try to be precise, even adding "non-approved" NFHS mechanics if a player gets hit on the head or something.

But I think the overwhelming majority do see hand checks as a foul on a dribbler. Once a player gets into their shooting motion if the hand is there it is effectively a push or illegal use of hands.

I'm still trying to envision a play where I would even think about calling a hand check on a shot attempt.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I can't say I see many holds on shots, either. It's typically a block, or "illegal contact," as we're instructed to call it. (I suppose all fouls are illegal contact, so it's hard to go wrong there.) I still can't rule out a hand check.

I've always tried to be precise with the type of foul, but I'm starting to get the impression most really don't care.

I do not know what you mean by thinking others do not care. I think a hand check is not an appropriate foul for a shooting foul. Honestly I wish the NF would open up some of the signals that you see at other levels to be more descriptive. Hand checking be what has been described has always been on the ball handler and preventing movement with the ball. Shooting fouls usually involve another set of contact IMHO.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not know what you mean by thinking others do not care. I think a hand check is not an appropriate foul for a shooting foul. Honestly I wish the NF would open up some of the signals that you see at other levels to be more descriptive. Hand checking be what has been described has always been on the ball handler and preventing movement with the ball. Shooting fouls usually involve another set of contact IMHO.

Peace

For that matter, until a few years ago, there was no such foul as a hand check. Every single hand check could properly be described as either a hold, a push, or illegal use of hands. Hand check is really redundant but offer just a bit more of a descriptive term.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I can't say I see many holds on shots, either. It's typically a block, or "illegal contact," as we're instructed to call it. (I suppose all fouls are illegal contact, so it's hard to go wrong there.) I still can't rule out a hand check.

I've always tried to be precise with the type of foul, but I'm starting to get the impression most really don't care.

Bingo. I just go with whatever seems to come first to my mind.

That said, I will *always* show a hit to the head on a drive regardless if it's in the mechanics chart or not -- especially if it's contact that would likely receive a pass had it been anywhere else -- I want the coaches to know I called it because of the head contact.

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by Rich

Bingo. I just go with whatever seems to come first to my mind.

That said, I will *always* show a hit to the head on a drive regardless if it's in the mechanics chart or not -- especially if it's contact that would likely receive a pass had it been anywhere else -- I want the coaches to know I called it because of the head contact.

I also do this....always have one of the other official tell me that is not the appropriate signal, I always thank them for the info

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

I also do this....always have one of the other official tell me that is not the appropriate signal, I always thank them for the info

Give the approved signal first -- then add the supplementary information

[mj]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Give the approved signal first -- then add the supplementary information

I give the approved signal but verbalize, 'hit them in the head.'

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Give the approved signal first -- then add the supplementary information

I do!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

I do!

Depending on who the other official is, then ignore him/her.