New rules on contact / hand-checking

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Mark, I hope you would mean that if the defender weren't already beaten. With all due respect, I have to agree with Rich here. If you have two hands on a ball handler in front of you, or if the handler is in the shooting act, I can understand a whistle. However, if the ball-handler is driving, and RSBQ is not compromised, doesn't a whistle actually benefit the defense (foul count notwithstanding)?

I was instructed to especially get the two hands when the offense has beaten the defense, while outside the lane area. Our state association also wants the NFHS to define the lane area. I believe it is 3 feet either side of the lane lines, at least that is what we were told.

Originally Posted by Rich

They're easy to enforce. They're pretty much absolutes. One just has to have the stones and the backing to enforce them.

Exactly, that's my fear. We'll see how it goes once the season starts. If anything these rule changes do give us the ammunition -- we just need to step up and take care of business.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

10-6-12 New
The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a ball handler/dribbler:
a. Placing two hands on the player.
b. Placing an extended arm bar on the player.
c. Placing and keeping a hand on the player.
d. Contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands.
Rationale: Rather than continuing to make hand-checking a point of emphasis year after year, simply add a brand new rule that requires a personal foul be called any time this type of contact occurs on a player holding or dribbling the ball outside of the lane area. The NFHS game needs this type of illegal contact on the perimeter ball handlers and dribblers eliminated.

Even if this is added, (Is this a done deal in the new book or just somebody's assessment of what it will/should say?) doesn't the main definition of a foul still take precedence?

A1 turns the corner and is on his was to a breakaway layup as B1 makes contact with his hand on A1's hip for an extended period of time.

Is everybody gonna call this "automatic" foul? I doubt it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

... doesn't the main definition of a foul still take precedence?

How about the definition of incidental contact, and the basic principles of advantage, and disadvantage? Is the baby thrown away with the bathwater?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Even if this is added, (Is this a done deal in the new book or just somebody's assessment of what it will/should say?) doesn't the main definition of a foul still take precedence?

A1 turns the corner and is on his was to a breakaway layup as B1 makes contact with his hand on A1's hip for an extended period of time.

Is everybody gonna call this "automatic" foul? I doubt it.

The words are substantially the same as what is in the NCAAW book -- and it means call it without regard to RSBQ or an assessment of ad/disad.

Those types of contact are deemed / defined to cause an advantage and are to be called.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

They're easy to enforce. They're pretty much absolutes. One just has to have the stones and the backing to enforce them.

For some, this will be the sticking point.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The words are substantially the same as what is in the NCAAW book -- and it means call it without regard to RSBQ or an assessment of ad/disad.

Those types of contact are deemed / defined to cause an advantage and are to be called.

I was a clinician at a college officiating camp being held in conjunction with a HS team camp. One coach (up by 20 points) was complaining about all the "touch" fouls. I tried tell him that the new rules specifically spell out that these are fouls, but that explanation didn't mean much to him.

I'm quite sure he'll be earning a couple T's early in season before he finally gets it.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I was a clinician at a college officiating camp being held in conjunction with a HS team camp. One coach (up by 20 points) was complaining about all the "touch" fouls. I tried tell him that the new rules specifically spell out that these are fouls, but that explanation didn't mean much to him.

I'm quite sure he'll be earning a couple T's early in season before he finally gets it.

I had a coach this weekend who tried to complain to me about one of the officials. I told him he would've gotten a technical from me, so he should be happy he was dealing with that official.

He didn't like that.

[JetMetFan]

This rule + camps with HS coaches = Complaining. It's going to happen, more so with BV coaches. GV coaches, presumably, watch/pay attention to NCAAW basketball so they're very aware of how strictly the guidelines were enforced. The best answer I hear from clinicians is, "Coach, this is what's going to happen in the regular season. Consider yourself lucky. You get a chance to work out any issues now."

I dealt with it on the GV level in NYC this past season due to the code differences between boys & girls. How those games went depended on my partner. If they also worked NCAAW it was easy. We pretty much used it as practice. If the other person didn't work NCAAW they needed a little prodding. As long as I kept up with it they were pretty much forced to follow along.

I only had one issue with a coach and that was in a Christmas tourney where the visitors were from NJ. That coach kept complaining about "touch fouls" and his "kids would all foul out." Ironically, the home team had three players foul out. His team only lost one.

[OrStBballRef]

Originally Posted by OrStBballRef

I've only done a few summer league games this year (all on the women's side) and so far I've actually seeing it be enforced fairly well not perfectly well, but pretty good so far.

That being said the girls side I have done is in several high caliber tournaments over here where they are skilled enough not to hand check up top.

Most of my calls with this new rule have been in the post with the arm bar or two hands on etc...one game we probably called 4-5 on one teams post defenders for trying to guard like this. Kids got the message and adjusted coaches didn't complain at all because we were consistent early and often.

I have to say I do like the new rule about the handchecks as I think it will clean up the game. That being said I could easily see a lot of the freshman and JV games take a lot longer now because those kids may not be as fast as to react to the changes as the varsity players.

So I posted this yesterday before I had a set of 3 games in one of the tournaments around here. 2nd game of the 3 set...well lets just say we took these new rules out for a spin and put them through the ringers. Much more so than in the previous 15-20 summer league games I had worked.

Both teams were all over the place with the hands. Hand checks up top, two hands on, arm bars etc..double bonus both halves, but we were consistent and didn't get much complaints about the calls on the new rules.

That being said what I did hear was some complaints about some of the contact in the post on the shot. Ie dribbler goes up for a shot and gets a little bump, which didn't affect RSBQ and we don't call a foul. Coaches 'logic' being if we are calling the 'touch' stuff up top and in the post that should be called to. Of course the coach didn't understand the fouls we were passing on were more advantage/disadvantage/RSBQ type of fouls that we still use judgment on, but I didn't want to engage him in that conversation.

Later in the game the team that had more fouls due to the new rules literally was just throwing arms back on anything close. They got the message after getting into foul trouble.

Every official I've worked with the last 2 weekends like the changes and all agreed it makes it much easier to call and less open to interpretation like it has been in the past.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I was instructed to especially get the two hands when the offense has beaten the defense, while outside the lane area. Our state association also wants the NFHS to define the lane area. I believe it is 3 feet either side of the lane lines, at least that is what we were told.

Here's what it is in NCAA:





Of course, the NFHS seems to have done this without defining the lane area in the rule book (yet) but I'd imagine it would be something similar to this.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

How about the definition of incidental contact, and the basic principles of advantage, and disadvantage? Is the baby thrown away with the bathwater?

As we enforced it last season in NCAAW, yeah, pretty much...at least when you're dealing with the BH/dribbler. I've already had a couple of plays in camps this summer where a defender kept their hand on a BH/dribbler who had turned the corner on the way to the basket. I held, made the call and gave the BH/dribbler FTs. My clinician - in this case one of my supervisors - told me I should have made the call earlier. The exact question was, "When did the illegal contact take place?" Since it was before the shooting motion I was told the play should have been ruled a common foul.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

...If they also worked NCAAW it was easy. We pretty much used it as practice. If the other person didn't work NCAAW they needed a little prodding....

Anyone who is already working NCAA-M also should already be used to the new HS rules.

[Freddy]

Several camps and a bunch of clinics thus far yield the observation that most officials "got the memo" and all clinicians prompted compliance. Those players who "chested up" and played good defense on the perimeter slightly outnumbered those teams of "handsy" players who got foul after foul after foul. With no tally of individual personal fouls as a curb, they just kept at it until the early bonus situations wasted their valuable game-like scrimmage time with one-and-ones.
Will likely be better once the season starts and they're sitting on the bench early.

[Toren]

I found it interesting that the NCAAW side defines post player differently than ball handler. I might have the terms messed up, but the essence is this, if a post player, with the ball, has their back to the basket, they are not considered a "ball handler" until they face the basket.

Meanwhile, on the NCAAM side, we consider anyone with the ball a ball handler, so if a post player has the ball, then hands off by the defense, or you're getting a foul.

I'll be interested to see how the new high school interpretation deals with this.