New rules on contact / hand-checking

[Kansas Ref]

Well, this is a fine thread about "hand-checking". In pre-game me and partner talk about how to recognize it, which is usually occuring when in Trail position and we're observing the guards bring ball up under close defensive pressure or on the wing area when SF is jab-stepping. Ball-handler is making all manner of spin moves, between leg dribbles, and crossover dribbles to evade defender. We notice that when defender was shuffling defensive footwork they would extend a hand to put on dribbler's hip then quickly take it off. Then, during the half-time, me and partner would lament that we missed those calls, and also talke about/self-evaluate and ask selves "did that teeny bit of contact impede dribbler?", then at second half, we'd try to make the adjustment calls and try to strike a balance. I'd say we then had 2 or 3 more such calls.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

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?

RSBQ is a crock of horse manure. JAR and Billy have made very intelligent observations. A foul is a foul is a foul (and a horse is a horse is a horse of course of course, ). If it is a foul in the first thirty seconds of the game it is a foul in the last thirty seconds of the game. If it is a foul in the Mid-Court Area (look up Mid-Court Area in your Funk & Wagnalls or at least in a NBCUSC Rules Book from the mid-1970's) then it is a foul in the Free Throw Lane.

Yes, the players are bigger, stronger, faster, and quicker. BUT, the dribbling, traveling, and illegal contact (including guarding and screening) rules have not changed in over fifty years. What has changed is that: 1) Coaches (at the high school level), in general, have done a terrible job of teaching players how to play defense in general as well as a terrible job of teaching players how to guard and screen; 2) There is a certain element in the game that physicality and "playing through contact" is more important than actually using skill to play the game within the rules.

I did not need RSBQ to tell me what was and was not a foul 44 years ago and I do not need it now.

I am going to get off my soap box now and take my pre-dinner pre-dinner nap after which I will take my pre-dinner nap.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

Well, this is a fine thread about "hand-checking". In pre-game me and partner talk about how to recognize it, which is usually occuring when in Trail position and we're observing the guards bring ball up under close defensive pressure or on the wing area when SF is jab-stepping. Ball-handler is making all manner of spin moves, between leg dribbles, and crossover dribbles to evade defender. We notice that when defender was shuffling defensive footwork they would extend a hand to put on dribbler's hip then quickly take it off. Then, during the half-time, me and partner would lament that we missed those calls, and also talke about/self-evaluate and ask selves "did that teeny bit of contact impede dribbler?", then at second half, we'd try to make the adjustment calls and try to strike a balance. I'd say we then had 2 or 3 more such calls.

Welcome to the Board Kansas. From where do you hail in the Jay Hawk state? My mother was a native of Linwood and I was born in Lawrence.

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

All I will say is that I have called it every summer league and every shootout this summer. Yes, there has been some blowback, but they get over it. It is just like last year where my state told everyone that these things needed to be called. The players and coaches adjusted or they just kept getting fouls called on them.

Peace

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Welcome to the Board Kansas. From where do you hail in the Jay Hawk state? My mother was a native of Linwood and I was born in Lawrence.

MTD, Sr.

*OK, I know of that area and of Lawrence. I've reffed games in Lawrence school system and at KU adult leagues games--but not yet any Big 12 games.
I'm located out of Kansas City and travel up to 50 miles N, S, E, W of my base. Small towns in the rural counties Ive done their school system (KSHAA) and to my surprise--in some of those small towns (salina, lindsborg, clay center, alba, wamego, junction city, cherokee creek) there are talented hoopsters there---always a 'culture shock" for me when I show up at a small town school and parking lot has deer racks and fishing rods in pickup trucks....but in the gym they are really hooping! That's what I love about basketball--transcendent of culture, socioeconomics, etc factors--just people who like to hoop it up.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

... the Mid-Court Area (look up Mid-Court Area in a NBCUSC Rules Book from the mid-1970's)

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: I know exactly what you mean by the midcourt area. The two of us, and maybe Mark Padgett, may be the only ones "experienced" enough to remember the exception to the closely guarded rule when the dribbler crossed from the midcourt to the forecourt.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Rich

We had one play where the player committed a foul (by the standards of the new rule) just after the ball handler had beat him and had a clear path to the basket.

It was a multiple touch on the ball handler by the defender, BTW.

I still think this is one where you want to have a slow whistle. The NFHS may not agree, however. Hopefully all our states will give us guidance.

I believe that a foul committed under those circumstances qualifies as an intentional personal foul. "Negates an opponent's obvious advantageous position ..."

[APG]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that a foul committed under those circumstances qualifies as an intentional personal foul. "Negates an opponent's obvious advantageous position ..."

Good luck with that one

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that a foul committed under those circumstances qualifies as an intentional personal foul. "Negates an opponent's obvious advantageous position ..."

I believe not.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Rich

I believe not.

Why do you believe that?
You state that the player had his opponent beaten and a clear path to the basket when the opponent fouled him.
What do you want to do--charge a common foul and award a throw-in?
Doesn't seem fair to the offensive team and permits the defense to take advantage of a rule. This is exactly why the first part of the intentional personal foul rule was written.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why do you believe that?
You state that the player had his opponent beaten and a clear path to the basket when the opponent fouled him.
What do you want to do--charge a common foul and award a throw-in?
Doesn't seem fair to the offensive team and permits the defense to take advantage of a rule. This is exactly why the first part of the intentional personal foul rule was written.

I think it's an unfortunate result of the new rules that a defender may inadvertently benefit. If I think the player did it on purpose to prevent a layup, I'd go with the intentional, but I'd have to be about 99% certain of his intent. I don't think the rules committee wanted us to turn contact that was previously incidental (zero impact on the opponent) into an intentional foul.

I could be wrong, though.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: I know exactly what you mean by the midcourt area. The two of us, and maybe Mark Padgett, may be the only ones "experienced" enough to remember the exception to the closely guarded rule when the dribbler crossed from the midcourt to the forecourt.

GAH!!! I am getting old! LOL!

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think it's an unfortunate result of the new rules that a defender may inadvertently benefit. If I think the player did it on purpose to prevent a layup, I'd go with the intentional, but I'd have to be about 99% certain of his intent. I don't think the rules committee wanted us to turn contact that was previously incidental (zero impact on the opponent) into an intentional foul.

I could be wrong, though.

Agree.
They will only benefit 5 times. If these fouls are called, they will largely stop happening.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Agree.
They will only benefit 5 times. If these fouls are called, they will largely stop happening.

If you permit a team to commit a strategic foul whenever the opposing team is about to score an easy basket and only penalize it with a common foul, a smart coach will take that penalty everytime and continue to use the tactic.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

GAH!!! I am getting old! LOL!

MTD, Sr.

Getting?