These situations call for the game Official to apply shrewd judgement. Although hand checking violations are more "visible" when occurring on the perimeter than in the post, these violations do allow the Defender to "gain an advantage". Even if an offensive post player is slashing across the lane moving towards the ball and the defender has slightly impeded his cut.

Believe me, Jeff, I didn't mean to say my side was more consistent. That's why I said "appeared." My side may have harped on it more in the preseason. Who knows? I do know Freddy isn't the first person I've heard say the guidelines were an NCAAW thing last season.

I'm with you on the NF side of things (we're agreeing again...I'm waiting for the lightning). I can already see the mess beginning since the powers that be put out the rule but didn't make a blanket statement as to how it should be called. I'm sure you saw on the FB site that some say their boards want the rule called the way NCAAM has it while others want the NCAAW interpretation. So much for NF helping IAABO achieve its goal of "one rule, one interpretation."

I do not watch a lot women's college basketball until basically the Final Four and I openly admit that fact. All I know is that there were a lot of fouls in the Men's game and there was no distinction between when these things were to be called as it relates to the post or the perimeter. It did not need to be talked about because no one said what was done in one part of the court should be called any differently. Actually it was emphasized that the actions with all the absolutes that were put into the rules were the same. And that is what was told to us in meetings and from D1 officials at the conference staff meetings I work. That is why I do not know why who is a post player or what the definition of one even matters in this discussion. If the women's side was having that conversation, that is news to me as I do not work that side.

Peace

That's the difference. I watch both because there's more NCAAM on TV (obviously). Until I saw some of the posts here I never realized there *was* a difference in terms of how post play is dealt with.

I'll tell you one thing, I hope NF standardizes something fast. If someone only works HS in one state/area it won't be a problem but if you work in two states (for me it could be NY & NJ but I stick with NY) and the states have two different interps that's going to affect officials *and* teams. The mess has already been made. Lets see how/if it's cleaned up.

Well this is not an issue for most officials I am sure. I guess I could like many other officials work in another state like Wisconsin or Indiana and previously Iowa and Missouri, but that would be a hassle. So I do not see this as an issue and most officials I doubt work multiple states. Also states have no incentive to standardize in an interpretation, which the NF allows to happen anyway. At least in Illinois, not much benefit for a team to play a lot of teams from another state. I know for me I am lucky if I get one team out of state to play an Illinois team. Just like there is no incentive for the NCAAM committee to do what the NCAAW committee does either. That is mostly our problem if we choose to work in those situations.

Peace

Went to a meeting this morning and conversation broke out on this topic...

B1 defending dribbler a1.. Puts one hand on him in backcourt..a1 continues up the court now in front court..b1 again one hand on him...are you calling this a foul? Or is it when done repeated and constant manner in short time frame.

We had the same discussion. We came to the conclusion, if the defender puts a hand on and removes, and maintains the 6 ft guarding space, any other touch would draw the whistle. If the 6 ft requirement is removed, then the second touch wouldn't draw a whistle.

[QUOTE=

B1 defending dribbler a1.. Puts one hand on him in backcourt..a1 continues up the court now in front court..b1 again one hand on him...are you calling this a foul?[/QUOTE]



Not a chance I am calling a foul on this play, nor did I see it called that way in any college game I worked or watched last season. Two touches occurring 40-80 feet apart, I hope you spent the off season fine tuning your game management skills.

You may not have seen it but I do know in NCAAW we've been told the foul is supposed to be called on the second touch regardless of whether it happens two feet after the first or 80 feet after the first. The rule states in NFHS and <del>NCAA</del> NCAAW that it's a foul when a defender contacts the ball handler/dribbler more than once with the same hand or with alternating hands. There are no time or distance limits between touches written into the rule which means no limits exist.

I had at least one instance last season when B1 contacted A1 as A1 was nearing the division line then B1 contacted A1 again about 5 or 6 seconds later and I called the foul. B's head coach complained but after I made the call I told her the first contact was in the backcourt. She didn't say another word and my supervisor never brought it up (and believe me, he would have brought it up).

Sound reasoable
 

This sounds like a good baseline to begin with. This is where our judgement should come in. I think of the "hot stove" test as meaning the two touches happen together. I was always told to see it as hand on, hand off, hand on, hand off, hand on...

Under the new rule I don't care where it happens (FC/BC) I just care that it happens. But I do think its reasonable to play on if there is a significant amount of time between the two touches. The intent of the rule is to penalize the defense for those hand checks that would "bother" the dribbler and thus disrupt their play (or freedom of movement) but were not getting called by some officials.

I plan to call this by looking at it from three perspectives: 1) If in my judgement the two touches disrupt the dribbler then I will call it no matter how far apart they are; 2) If in my judgement I think the dribbler is not affected and the two touches are faaaaaaaaar apart, I probably will not call it (but I may verbalize hands off); 3) If the two touches are close together, I will always call it wether or not the dribbler is disrupted. Of course, game management, my partner's calls, and other factors will influence how I call it on a day to day basis but for the most part I intend to call it as written using the professional judgement I am paid for.

I am not calling that. And there is still a thing in the rulebook, which has never been changed called "incidental contact." So a play with that far apart situation I do not see any reason to make that kind of call IMO.

Peace

If you're planning to call the rule in this fashion - and if others do the same - what was the purpose of changing the guidelines from a PoE into a rule in the first place?


What does being closely guarded have to do with the rule as its written?

The rule was changed because some never called this foul unless there was clear displacement or advantage/disadvantage. I called this foul regularly in the past and plan to keep calling it. I don't think my explaination of how I will be calling deviates from the new rule -- and as I said in #1 & #3, if they touch with two hands I will call it.

However, I also believe that it is not reasonable nor the intent of the rule to call a foul if it has been a very long time before the player touches the dribbler a second time, which is my #2. For arguements sake, say B1 touches A1 once right after he gets the inbound pass near the endline in the back court, then A1 dribbles all the way down the floor to the other endline goes under the basket through the lane and dribbles back out to near half court before B1 touches A1 the second time. I just don't see how I can call that foul.

I am sure most of the time the touches will be fairly close together and I will definetly get it when it happens. I have already been villainized in summer & fall league by coaches, parents, & kids because they think I am calling this too tightly.

I have not read the new NFHS version of the rule yet. I was told it was the same as the NCAA-M, but that could be erroneous information. I have no idea what the NCAA-W rule states. However, the NCAA-M rule states it is illegal to continually jab an opponent by extending an arm and placing a hand or forearm on the opponent. As you can see below (taken directly from dictionary for definition of continually), at least in the NCAA-M version of the rule, time and distance are part of the rule as defined.


1.

very often; at regular or frequent intervals; habitually.


2.

without cessation or intermission; unceasingly; always.

Here's the text of the new rule:

10-6-12

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 dribbler.

d. Contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands.