LGP under the basket ?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by egj13

Every time a defender places a hand on a ball handler it is a hand check...how do answer the coach when he asks you why you didn't call the check? You might let a defender body a kid in the low post and I might call it a push...how do you answer the coach when he asks why it wasn't a push? We all have parts of the game that we call to our own personal preference. I don't call blocks deep in the paint, when a coach asks me why it wasn't a block I tell him I didn't see it as a block...pretty easy stuff here.

Because you're basing it on philosophy rather than rule. Deciding on a handcheck or push is not the same thing as adding your personal philosophy to the rule.

And no, placing a hand on a dribbler is not an automatic hand check according to the rule.

[egj13]

Originally Posted by Adam

Because you're basing it on philosophy rather than rule. Deciding on a handcheck or push is not the same thing as adding your personal philosophy to the rule.

And no, placing a hand on a dribbler is not an automatic hand check according to the rule.

Deciding handchecks is philosophy too...you personally have a philosophy on how much hand checking you are going to allow.

10-6-2...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 to an attempt to play the ball.

I don't see much gray area there but you don't call a foul every time contact is made (I hope)...due to your personal philosophy of how much hand checking you are going to allow.

What is your philosphy on three seconds? If a player is standing on the line do you call him for it?

9-7-2...The three-second restriction applies to a player who has only one
foot touching the lane boundary. The line is part of the lane. All lines designating the free-throw lane, but not lane-space marks and neutral-zone marks, are part of the lane.

Not much gray area there either but I bet you have a personal philosophy on this.

My personal philosophy is that a player under the basket has an unfair advantage when trying to draw a charge and it is dangerous...hence the reason the NCAA put in the RA. But don't play all high and mighty like I am the only official on here that has personal philosophies on how the game should be called.

[Adam]

You can't quote the hand check rule without referencing the incidental contact rule. That's not personal preference no matter how much you want it to be.

And it's only dangerous when it's not called by the rule. The NCAA changed it because the officials were calling it that way already.

And no, I don't follow a personal philosophy about three seconds. I follow the predominant philosophy of my association.

[egj13]

Originally Posted by Adam

You can't quote the hand check rule without referencing the incidental contact rule. That's not personal preference no matter how much you want it to be.

And it's only dangerous when it's not called by the rule. The NCAA changed it because the officials were calling it that way already.

And no, I don't follow a personal philosophy about three seconds. I follow the predominant philosophy of my association.

Incidental contact doesn't apply to hand checking...you can't incidentally extend your hand out to contact an opponent...afterall, the synonym for incidental is accidental...I don't think any of us would clarify hand checking as accidental

But if you go to page 68..."guidelines for teaching and officiating" #5 says Regardless of where it takes place on the court, when a player continuously places a hand on the ball handler/dribbler, it is a foul.

Basically you need to face the fact that like my philosophy on blocks under the basket, you yourself (as well as all of us on here) have a philosophy on hand checking. As far as 3 seconds, whether it is you philosophy or your association's philosophy, the rule is being applied in accordance with a philospohy and not the rule book.

[scrounge]

eg, I think you're confusing "using a guideline to apply judgment and discern how to apply a rule" with "make up your own arbitrary rule and ignore one when you feel like it". Your hand check or 3 sec example is not applicable, since those are using philosophy/local practice in how to apply a judgment uniformly. To be the same as your made-up rule on blocking, the analogy would be to have one hand-check philosophy in the backcourt but another for the front court or something. You're just creating a different method of judgment out of whole cloth, based purely on location. It has no basis in the rules for high school; indeed, it's explicitly against the rules, since NFHS has clearly not adopted the RA.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by egj13

Incidental contact doesn't apply to hand checking...you can't incidentally extend your hand out to contact an opponent...afterall, the synonym for incidental is accidental...I don't think any of us would clarify hand checking as accidental

But if you go to page 68..."guidelines for teaching and officiating" #5 says Regardless of where it takes place on the court, when a player continuously places a hand on the ball handler/dribbler, it is a foul.

Basically you need to face the fact that like my philosophy on blocks under the basket, you yourself (as well as all of us on here) have a philosophy on hand checking. As far as 3 seconds, whether it is you philosophy or your association's philosophy, the rule is being applied in accordance with a philospohy and not the rule book.

They might be synonyms, but they do have different meanings. You can have accidental contact that's a foul, and intentional contact that isn't.

And you've now added the word "continuous" to the rule -- that alone makes it different. A "hot stove touch" meets the literal rule requirements for a foul, but isn't to be interpreted that way.

A better analogy would be "yes, the contact affected the dribbler's rhythm, speed, balance or quickness, but I didn't call it a foul because s/he was too far from the basket."

The rule / case is pretty clear here, at least to me. If you would have called it a charge if the action had taken place 6' farther out on the court, then you should have the same call when the action is under the basket.

Now, if you want to suggest that the rule be changed, that's a different discussion.

[APG]

Originally Posted by egj13

Incidental contact doesn't apply to hand checking...you can't incidentally extend your hand out to contact an opponent...afterall, the synonym for incidental is accidental...I don't think any of us would clarify hand checking as accidental

I'll let you continue to let you explain your "philosophy" but incidental does not mean accidental when talking from a basketball rule perspective. It's contact that does not rise to the level of a foul because it does hinder a player from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by egj13

Incidental contact doesn't apply to hand checking...you can't incidentally extend your hand out to contact an opponent...afterall, the synonym for incidental is accidental...I don't think any of us would clarify hand checking as accidental
....

Keep on digging...you can referee by the seat of your pants only so long.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by egj13

Incidental contact doesn't apply to hand checking...you can't incidentally extend your hand out to contact an opponent...afterall, the synonym for incidental is accidental...I don't think any of us would clarify hand checking as accidental
....

Keep on digging...you're only showing more of what you don't understand about basketball. You may have enough charisma to pull it off on most of the coaches in your area but in doing so you screw any official that follows you and tries to do it right.

[Adam]

I've never seen a coach complain when a 30 year vet tells all the players to go behind the division line for technical foul free throws, either. Doesn't make it right.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Adam

I've never seen a coach complain when a 30 year vet tells all the players to go behind the division line for technical foul free throws, either. Doesn't make it right.

You would not (Or maybe you would) believe how many guys I work with that perpetuate this myth, even after it was on the Part 2 test this year. This isn't the first time I've heard this one, but I had a guy tell me this year that the players can't go near their benches to talk to their coach during TF free throws. So the team whose bench is opposite the free throws can't go near their bench because the other team can't cross over the division line to go to their bench.

You can tell that most guys enforce this myth though. We had techs on head coaches in two different games last week and every player went and stood behind the division line on their own.

[tomegun]

If someone were to use the philosophy mindset:

1. On a block/charge play under the basket, what would the response be if the coach asked, "Was my player set to take the charge?" if the player was set and the official just doesn't believe in calling a charge under the basket?
2. What would the response be if B1 clearly has a hand on A1, BUT A1's RBSQ isn't affected and the coach asked, "Did the defender's hand meet the definition of hand checking?"

I think one answer could be explained as contact that didn't impact the play and is a pure judgement call while the other is an official's opinion of what he/she will or will not call. If the official tells a coach that the player was too far under the basket, and the coach knows the requirement to not be under the basket doesn't exist, hold on - the ride is about to get bumpy.

KISS and assume that the coach always knows the rule. Of course the coach often has no clue about the rule, but it keeps officials, assignors, etc. out of harm's way.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tomegun

If someone were to use the philosophy mindset:

1. On a block/charge play under the basket, what would the response be if the coach asked, "Was my player set to take the charge?" if the player was set and the official just doesn't believe in calling a charge under the basket?
2. What would the response be if B1 clearly has a hand on A1, BUT A1's RBSQ isn't affected and the coach asked, "Did the defender's hand meet the definition of hand checking?"

I think one answer could be explained as contact that didn't impact the play and is a pure judgement call while the other is an official's opinion of what he/she will or will not call. If the official tells a coach that the player was too far under the basket, and the coach knows the requirement to not be under the basket doesn't exist, hold on - the ride is about to get bumpy.

KISS and assume that the coach always knows the rule. Of course the coach often has no clue about the rule, but it keeps officials, assignors, etc. out of harm's way.

In #2 I could always say that it is incidental contact and did not affect the "normal movement" of the player. That is also in the rulebook and whether we like it or not, has an actual definition while handchecking mostly is an interpretation of current rules.

That being said I agree totally with the last statement. It is better to sit on the rules when possible. And it is best to use rulebook language.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by egj13

....

My personal philosophy is that a player under the basket has an unfair advantage when trying to draw a charge and it is dangerous...hence the reason the NCAA put in the RA. But don't play all high and mighty like I am the only official on here that has personal philosophies on how the game should be called.

So, do you tell the coach this is why you didn't make the player control call or do you lie?

Based on an earlier post you seem reluctant to be forthcoming with the coach. If I don't call a hand-checking foul I can always truthfully say I didn't feel the contact affected the ball-handler. Can you be as truthful in your response about the block?