I showed all three codes and their language that they are all similar in rules language. But the issue is not language in the rule, the issue is interpretation of how this is applied. And you know darn well that interpretations often drive how we call the game or how a rule is enforced. Now if you cannot see that, then that is why will never agree on this issue.

All three codes addresses two hands on the dribbler. NCAAW says "anytime" the NF says "placing" and NCAAM says "Putting."

All three addresses an "arm bar" and NCAAM addresses the placing of a "forearm."

All three codes address "placing hands" on a dribbler.

I am trying to figure out what is the same about NF that is not the same with NCAAM?

Peace

Here's the issue as I see it...some on here are using the NCAA-M point c, which is not the same thing as NCAA-W point c. And the NCAA-W point c and the NF point d ARE the same thing. If you cannot see that, then you are correct - we will never agree on this issue.

I am not using anything. The play we are talking about is an interpretation not mentioned in any rule. Neither of these three codes addresses the play we were talking about that came from the NCAAW's side of the game. The NF has two plays that are new with the Casebook and I do not recall a single interpretation from the NF addressed that NCAAW's play that is to be called a foul. So to say they are the same is a bastardization of the conversation. And it is the interpretation that if you put hands on a player multiple times in NCAAM, that is a foul. But the issue that is never addressed or mentioned is if that time frame is extensive or at different times. See as BNR said, it is possible in the high school game to have a touch and a minute later have another touch. Yes it could be that different in time as HS unlike NCAA codes does not have a shot clock. I will not work 10 percent of my games with a shot clock. So I am not sure it is appropriate to assume that what the NCAAW suggests applies without any comment from the NF when the situation can drastically be different based on the nature of the NF game.

Peace

Still waiting: 1:56, B1 touches A1 in the backcourt. A1 dribbles in the frontcourt and coaches tells him to hold for last shot. A1 continues to dribble, and Team B pulls back. 0:15 B1 comes out to challenge and touches A1. By rule that's a foul?

Yes, the way the rule is written, that is a foul. Not saying I agree with the logic.

Definition of "hot stove" touching right there. Case play has B1 doing the both touches back to back, not once here, then 10 seconds later over there.

If the opportunity presents itself, you mind bringing that play to your local and/or state interpreter?

Previous mention by NFHS of multiple touching by defender:

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post550274


2001-2002 Interps Part 2.
SITUATION 17: Al is slowly dribbling the ball up the court. Bl is lightly “tagging” Al, but is not impeding Al’s forward motion. The official warns Bl to “keep hands off.” RULING: This is a foul. There is no warning. (10-6-1)

According to this

Right where? I see nothing in that case about how close in time those touches were. Remember, there is supposed to be no judgement on these plays any more. How close is close enough? And by what criteria is that determined?

Well, obviously it is less than a 5 second timeframe for multiple touches in the front court.

But, seriously you really think they used the word tagging to mean something that happened 25 seconds apart? Sorry, but I'm not going to let you play dumb for this interp. You know exactly what they meant by tagging. It's quite obvious to anybody with any kind of basketball officiating intelligence, which I know you have.

I just do not get that someone thinks that if the wording in one area is the same, that the rules or application are considered to be the same. I work college football and many rules are worded the same and there is a different interpretation between the levels all the time. And no one in their right mind in football thinks that because the NCAA says something that applies to the NF. But for some reason NCAA Women's basketball or standards are so righteous that we must believe they feel the same way. It is just like in our area, we cannot even talk about these new rules without some Women's officials trying to tell us what the NCAA says what can take place in the post, even when there is no such interpretation in that either. I think this is more about stubbornness of those from the NCAA thinking that their game is somehow pure.

Oh, well.

Peace

I'm not sure that's obvious. There's nothing in the rule itself that limits it to a single closely guarded situation. If B1 touches A1, then A1 retreats from being closely guarded and B1 reapproaches A1, who has continuously maintained possession, and touches him, B1 has fouled by the plain language of the rule even if the second touch happens outside of 5 seconds of the first touch.

I think that's unenforceable for reasons discussed previously but it wouldn't be the first time we've seen a rule that cannot be reliable refereed.

I'm just gonna start having amnesia. First touch in the backcourt will just magically vanish from my mind. :D

Well what about the first touch in the back court with the T and then the ball handler goes into the C's primary and is touched again? Is the second touch a foul? No time limit right? Is that not in injustice if the C does not call the second touch that he did not even know there was a first touch? You really think the rules makers had that as the intention? And if that is their position, why did they not just come out and give that as an example since it is so clear to everyone? I do not work Two man, so this situation is very likely in my world.


Peace