The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   New rules on contact / hand-checking (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/98117-new-rules-contact-hand-checking.html)

Rich Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:49pm

New rules on contact / hand-checking
 
Based on my experiences as a clinician at a high school clinic today, it's going to be interesting this coming season. Even after telling people to CALL THE FOULS and reminding them to CALL THE FOULS, they weren't. I lost count of how many times a hand was placed on a ball-handler a second time without a whistle.

Maybe this will work itself out, but I'm expecting to hear "nobody's calling it that way" more than once this season.

Camron Rust Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 936906)
Based on my experiences as a clinician at a high school clinic today, it's going to be interesting this coming season. Even after telling people to CALL THE FOULS and reminding them to CALL THE FOULS, they weren't. I lost count of how many times a hand was placed on a ball-handler a second time without a whistle.

Maybe this will work itself out, but I'm expecting to hear "nobody's calling it that way" more than once this season.

It is an artifact of too many years of people promoting the style of game where it was not a foul unless it knocked the opponent sideways...and only if he missed the shot.

JetMetFan Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:31am

It will work if the officials' schedules are threatened if they don't call those fouls. Money talks. It will also work if we police ourselves.

That being said I think it will be harder to enforce on the H.S. level than it was on the NCAAW level. College coaches complain about those fouls not being called and they'll send video to a supervisor to back it up. Plus, observers will report back to the supervisors and with so many games either on TV or the web, supervisors can see what's being called on their own. How many people are observed during a H.S. season and how many coaches will complain, especially if the fouls aren't called and they're winning?

bob jenkins Sun Jun 29, 2014 08:27am

It can get called if it comes strongly from the state down through all levels -- and the mesage gets to the coaches that this will be called.

Yes, you'll have some foul fests early in the season, but by christmas the players will have adjusted.

IL had an even stricter enforcement of the rule last year and the message (generally) got through.

OrStBballRef Sun Jun 29, 2014 09:25am

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.

bainsey Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:45pm

I kept the new rule in my during camp last weekend. The camp director noted I was calling hand-checks at times that were probably pushes. Still, there were times I passed on hand checks when the dribbler was beating his defender. Even if the defender had two hands on the dribbler, if RSBQ isn't compromised, I don't see the point of a whistle here.

As I've read it, the rule doesn't really allow to take advantage/disadvantage into account. It comes across as being automatic, which as we know, isn't always effective.

BillyMac Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:59pm

Just So We All Know What We're Discussing ...
 
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.

reffish Sun Jun 29, 2014 01:09pm

I guess the point is coaches don't want two hands on their dribblers. Trying to officiate advantage/disadvantage is too subjective to a group of officials, so, two hands; foul. Seems pretty easy and makes my job easy, I don't have to judge advantage, just the defense, which; isn't that what we tell ourselves, officiate, err, ref the defense?

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Sun Jun 29, 2014 01:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bainsey (Post 936920)
I kept the new rule in my during camp last weekend. The camp director noted I was calling hand-checks at times that were probably pushes. Still, there were times I passed on hand checks when the dribbler was beating his defender. Even if the defender had two hands on the dribbler, if RSBQ isn't compromised, I don't see the point of a whistle here.

As I've read it, the rule doesn't really allow to take advantage/disadvantage into account. It comes across as being automatic, which as we know, isn't always effective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 936921)
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.


Bainsey:

My rule of thumb is: a) one hand is a hand check, and b) two hands is a push. That said, if I were evaluating you I would give you my rule of thumb but not ding you. I would ding you if a defender put two hands on the ball handler and you did not call a foul.


Billy:

What I find adorable about NFHS R10-S6-A12 is that 2014-15 will be my 44th year officiating and everything listed in R10-S6-A12 has always been a foul in both NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's because basketball is a "non-contact" sport.

With apologies to Mel Brooks: "Rules! I don't need no stinking rules to call a personal foul for illegal contact!"

MTD, Sr.

Rich Sun Jun 29, 2014 02:01pm

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.

Camron Rust Sun Jun 29, 2014 02:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bainsey (Post 936920)
I kept the new rule in my during camp last weekend. The camp director noted I was calling hand-checks at times that were probably pushes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 936926)
Bainsey:

My rule of thumb is: a) one hand is a hand check, and b) two hands is a push. That said, if I were evaluating you I would give you my rule of thumb but not ding you. I would ding you if a defender put two hands on the ball handler and you did not call a foul.

The "hand-check" foul has only been in the books for a few years. Why? All hand checks are also either a push or illegal use of hands or both. The only actual difference is in that each communicates a slightly different thing.

The hand check foul was only added because those types of fouls were not getting called enough. After still not being called enough the NFHS has now added explicit wording. They really want it called.

bainsey Sun Jun 29, 2014 03:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 936926)
I would ding you if a defender put two hands on the ball handler and you did not call a foul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich
I still think this is one where you want to have a slow whistle.

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)?

AremRed Sun Jun 29, 2014 08:42pm

I'm not sure there are enough quality officials at the High School level (myself included) to properly enforce these hand checking rules.

Even the college guys had preseason games with 60-70 fouls and some would argue those guidelines trailed off during conference play and the NCAA tournament (UK-Louisville being one shining example).

Rich Sun Jun 29, 2014 08:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 936932)
I'm not sure there are enough quality officials at the High School level (myself included) to properly enforce these hand checking rules.

Even the college guys had preseason games with 60-70 fouls and some would argue those guidelines trailed off during conference play and the NCAA tournament (UK-Louisville being one shining example).

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

OKREF Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 936926)


Billy:

What I find adorable about NFHS R10-S6-A12 is that 2014-15 will be my 44th year officiating and everything listed in R10-S6-A12 has always been a foul in both NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's because basketball is a "non-contact" sport.

With apologies to Mel Brooks: "Rules! I don't need no stinking rules to call a personal foul for illegal contact!"

MTD, Sr.

Exactly what I was told two weeks ago at camp. Coaches were complaining about it. A clinician told him that it has always been in the rule book. We as officials weren't calling it consistently, or in some cases at all. It was then addressed with the RSBQ. Still wasn't getting done, so now it is an automatic.

OKREF Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bainsey (Post 936929)
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.

AremRed Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 936934)
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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 02:04am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 936921)
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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 06:11am

Inquiring Minds Want To Know ???
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 936942)
... 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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 08:01am

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 936942)
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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:20am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 936934)
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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:46am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 936955)
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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 936980)
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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 01:00pm

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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 01:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrStBballRef (Post 936914)
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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 01:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 936937)
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:


http://i60.tinypic.com/s1i7tf.jpg


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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 01:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 936945)
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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 02:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetMetFan (Post 936989)
...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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 02:18pm

Report from Here
 
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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 02:18pm

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.

Kansas Ref Mon Jun 30, 2014 02:37pm

judgment vs impulse
 
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. Mon Jun 30, 2014 02:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 936942)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 936945)
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, :p). 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. Mon Jun 30, 2014 02:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref (Post 936998)
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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 02:49pm

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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 04:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 937000)
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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 04:20pm

Misty Water Color Memories ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 936999)
... 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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 07:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 936927)
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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 07:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 937011)
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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 08:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 937011)
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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 08:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 937013)
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 Mon Jun 30, 2014 09:53pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 937014)
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. Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 937007)
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 Tue Jul 01, 2014 02:23am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 937019)
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 Tue Jul 01, 2014 02:48am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 937022)
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 Tue Jul 01, 2014 04:11am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 937021)
GAH!!! I am getting old! LOL!

MTD, Sr.

Getting? ;)

Rich Tue Jul 01, 2014 08:35am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 937023)
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.

I would argue that this is one place where you hold the whistle. That's not what the NFHS wants, likely.

Camron Rust Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:46am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 937023)
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.

Perhaps...but if called early on and consistently, they'll get out of the habit and you will more easily recognize the strategic infractions when they occur and can more easily go to the next level of foul.

BTW, since you prefer correct grammar and spelling "everytime" is not a word. It is "every time" (two words). :)

JetMetFan Tue Jul 01, 2014 04:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 937011)
I believe that a foul committed under those circumstances qualifies as an intentional personal foul. "Negates an opponent's obvious advantageous position ..."

I would say if you're going to call a play like that an IF - or F1 in a college game - Stevie Wonder better be able to see the defender's intent from the last row. As was said, the individual will only be able to do it five times plus the team will be giving up FTs fairly early. The cost-benefit probably isn't worth it.

Rooster Tue Jul 01, 2014 05:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 937011)
I believe that a foul committed under those circumstances qualifies as an intentional personal foul. "Negates an opponent's obvious advantageous position ..."

Are YOU going to call it this way during the season?

And besides, don't a lot of fouls "Negate an opponent's obvious advantageous position?"

I think this is a riverdance on a slippery slope...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:55pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1