"Hand checks are NON shooting fouls!"
 

I enjoy "collecting" myths. This latest one came courtesy a middle school fan/parent today, right after I reported a hand-check foul to the table (which is opposite the stands in this little gym). It made me grin, as I can't say I've heard that one before, nor can I figure how someone would draw THAT conclusion.

I wonder if it came from the previous game's coach who wanted an "over the back" call in the first of the doubleheader.

FWIW- I've never called a hand check on a shooting foul.

At that point it becomes a push for me.

Obviously not the rule but I can easily see how a fan or even a coach would think this way.

During a foul, when I was table-side, I had a senior coach tell me last night, "C'mon ref, you gotta call those moving screens. They gotta be "set."

I briefly told him about moving screens, contact and not having to be "set."

And he turns to his coaches and tells them, well then we just need to teach our players they don't have to be set and it's ok to move....... Like I'm wrong and he's gonna show me later on when someone else calls it on his player...... :rolleyes:

No offense... but honestly I'm trying to envision a hand-check shooting foul and cannot do it. It's not really a hand-check anymore if he's shooting.

I was thinking of bonus free throws.

But, it's possible to have a hand check occur as the shooter gathers the ball. Not common, but there's nothing that prevents the call. I'd normally go with pushing, but still....

Too much convo, IMO. I think it's best not to hold rules clinics during games. He didn't ask a question so a simple "We're watching coach" is the most he would get from me.

I understand your point. The conversation was brief before I moved away.

This yr I'm trying to work on better comms with coaches - i.e., not be afraid to engage a coach, listen, or answer a question.

The more I think about this, the more I wonder if your parent wasn't right...

A hand-check is a violation in which a defender uses a hand to impede a player's progress.

Seems to me that if you do this during a shot (or even as it's being gathered to shoot), you're not really impeding progress as much as displacing a shooter (i.e. pushing). So if you're calling a hand-check, then you're calling a foul that occurred prior to the shot rather than during it.

Probably an exceedingly small nit to pick ... but honestly, I can see the parent's beef, and I'd call it a push if it happens during a shot going forward.

I don't think I've ever verbalized a "hand-check" on a shooting foul.

And I don't see myself changing that.

I call a push on shooting situations where it would be a hand checking otherwise. Never felt comfortable to call it a hand checking if the player has the ability to attempt a shot.

Peace

Actually, a hand check is a foul, not a violation. Beyond that, you bring an interesting analysis.

However, how can it pushing if the arms/hands never move forward? Pushing requires motion, generally from the arms or forearms (and sometimes the body, as in displacement). If the upright hands alone create the advantageous contact, there's your foul. If he's in the act of shooting, so be it.

So, pushing is out. Blocking? Maybe. Holding? No grasping in this case. Illegal contact? That could work, but I found it to be too vague here. If you want the kids to defend with their feet, and not their hands, wouldn't "hand check" make that point all the more clear?

Agree with other posters in that hand-checks occur on dribblers. Would call a push or a hold based on the nature of the foul. Sometimes the fans do have useful observations, but I would not make a habit of listening to what they say as it pertains to a critique of your game. In this case, I think they offered a useful nugget.

A dead clock is right twice a day, who cares what they said. They probably heard this from an official and decided to make it known what they heard. I would not put too much stock in anything a fan says. Certainly not when I hear things like, "He must give him a place to land" or "That is ticky-tack" when a player grabs a player's arm trying to get the ball and holds the player off from getting to the ball. :rolleyes:

Peace

You forgot "3 seconds." This has to be the favorite call of the unknowledgeable fan.

Last night i had the classic "3 seconds ref, the shot never hit the rim!"

also from last night, "how can he he have a closely guarded count while the dribbler is moving forward?"

I've never seen anyone call a handcheck on a shooting foul and I don't think I will be either. At that point, it's usually a push...maybe a hold.

Oh wise members of the board-a couple of years ago someone wrote a list of most misunderstood basketball rules.can whoever posted that post it again?

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

Peace

I had a new one tonight. I took a charge in a game (I was playing), and the guy who committed it said, "That can't be a charge, it was in the key." :rolleyes:

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.

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.

...as I also do.

JR...how do you VERBALIZE it"?

I hate saying 5 or 6 syllables when reporting...so I usually don't...I just give them the color, number and visual foul signal on an "illegal use of hands".

I like the one syllable fouls (getting rid of the ing)...block...push...hold...charge...

the two syllable fouls...hand check...

the three syllable fouls...team control...double foul (I do verbalize "foul" on this for some reason...probably becuase it is not seen much and it is only two words)

even the four syllable fouls...intentional...player control...technical foul(using "foul" for the same reason listed above)

but that crazy six syllable, four word foul...illegal use of hand...is hard to spit out and sounds weak...IMO.

Don't say anything -- just give the signal.

"White -- 32" (signal) "two shots'

Or, say "hit" or "hack"

Yes...I usually don't say anything...just give the signal.

I have tried the "hit" verbage...not bad, I suppose.

I have heard an official use the "hack" verbage...didn't really like it.

I can always use my one word substitute..."boom"...but suggest others not try this at home (or away for that matter) ;)

I will verbalize whatever it takes to get info to the coaches. Sometimes it may be silence on an obvious foul. But I say all kinds of things: grabbed his arm; hit to the face; trip; push in the back; on the elbow. Cuts down on those "what did he do" sidebars.

Sounds good...but what do the evaluators at the State playoffs tell you about it?

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:confused:

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

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

I verbalize the exactly what happened. I do not say the usual terms or that are in the book, I state the arm they hit, held or pushed and might state other words as description.

For example: "Contact with right arm" while giving the illegal use of hands signal" or "Hand-checking with both arms." while giving the hand-checking signal.

I started doing this after a camp I was asked to be more descriptive and have done it ever since. And I hardly get a single coach say boo about what I called or ask questions if they are paying attention.

Peace

I've done a state QF in front of the state's top dog and she didn't say a word. My visual mechanics are proper. Every college camp I've been to encourages extra verbal communication as part of your game. It eliminates the need to explain your calls to coaches. They know exactly what you have and so do your partners.

I do!

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

I say just "hands".

I like it...I have used "with the hand" in the past...but, I like the one word "hands"....thanks for your reply.

There's the big question.

It sounds to me like this all comes back to Roman Law. Here, we wouldn't get away with "hit" or "hack," nor would a re-enacted shot to the head suffice. If that's the way it's done in your area, though, do it.

I got my local answers regarding hand-checking on shooting fouls. Go with yours.