Yeah hot stove is a foul. One touch is not a foul.

Same here and why I asked. Because in all of our meetings, nothing like this was the description of an "absolute." And it appears that our Administrator does not feel this applies the way I am reading it here either.

Peace

OK well that is what the NCAAW wants. I am good with that logic if that is coming from their higher ups and they are preaching from high up and support their officials for calling it that way. But I know the NCAAM side does not have that stance or has not made that stance known. In this situation we do not have any evidence that is the position of the NF outside of this conversation (which is dangerous to assume they mirror one side of the NCAA interpretation). I have no problem going along if that is what the NF says and I am sure my state people will take on that position as well. But there clearly is a gap here and different understanding of the intent of this rule by those in this conversation. And like it or not, states have the right to come up with their interpretation of the current rules when there is no clear definition or example from the NF. Heck in many cases they can say, "This is how we are going to call it here....." and there is not much the NF is going to do about it if a state takes a position to clarify consistency. And I have referenced this in my state by how uniforms were enforced and how coaching box rules were enforce. I am not seeing any other state do what we are doing in these two situations and one was a philosophy change because games were constantly having to deal with uniform issues and the other is a rule that the IHSA wants enforced rather strictly.

Peace

Hot stove touching would be one example of touching a player more than once with the same or alternating hands.

It's certainly not the only example.

Well then there has to be more examples given if they want everyone on the same page. Otherwise we are going to have different interpretations of this rule. Because as a Men's college official, this situation has never been referenced as a foul that I can tell. And I have looked at every bulletin Adams has put out and never have I seen any such standard and the NCAA Men's Rules are practically the same as the NCAA Women's Rule. And on the Men's side, they emphasize heavily RSBQ in their video training and bulletins.

Peace

They are still emphasizing RSBQ on the hands-off "absolutes"??? So why would a hot-stove touch ever be a foul?

I really just would like someone to explain the distance between touches aspect...

First touch at halfcourt line and second touch at head of key = foul???

First touch 2 feet before halfcourt line and second touch at head of key = no foul?

What is the distance that should be traveled between touches?

Absolutes and RSBQ are not mutually exclusive. They are often used hand and hand with each other, but the absolutes suggest that these situations are above everything and need to be called. The play we are talking about, has never been used as an example of a hot-stove situation from my point of view.

I am not going to explain this, because this was never my interpretation of any of the rules. ;)

Isn't that what some people are suggesting from the NCAA Women's side and filtering it into the NF rules or interpretations? I say no unless RSBQ was changed by either touch. Heck we do not have a second touch if the first touch changes RSBQ of the ball handler. I have the same answer for both.

I'm not suggesting distance is a major factor. But if one thing happens that is not a foul, I am not going to say just a touch several feet or at a different time is a foul on a touch that does not fit the rules at a separate time. Heck what many are saying is that it is very possible that one officials would have to be aware of a first touch in one part of the court and call the foul based on that first touch the second contact regardless of RSBQ influence. I have always interpreted that a second touch of hands is always a rather immediate action, one after the other, not one incident and then several seconds later another.

Peace

From post #46 (I think)...these are your words:

"If one touch happens in the back court and then 20 feet later there is a touch in the front court with a chasing defender, I am not calling that a foul just because there was a second touch."

So you did put distances and locations into this discussion...

Like Rut, I actually have a problem with "2 touches = foul PERIOD" Conceivably there could be 2 touches by the same defender on the same ballhandler 2 minutes and 80 feet apart, with neither touch alone amounting to anything, but...........

But, "Contacting the player more than once"..... is plain language. Is this to be interpreted literally? We shall see.

On the other hand, "Placing and keeping and hand on the dribbler." provokes just as much of a question for me, if not more.

Keeps it there for how long? A second? Some fraction of a second?

This is what's so frustrating reading some of these things:

It seems like some people have no plans at all of changing how they call the game this season.

JAR, two touches on the same BH/dribbler 80 feet and two minutes apart is conceivable but there's also a reality component: How many times does the same person keep control of the ball for 2 consecutive minutes in a HS game? However...if you had a stall ball situation like the 2012 Oregon 5A GV championship and:

*A1 was touched once by B1 in the backcourt
*A1 moves into the frontcourt and maintains player control for a few minutes, then
*B1 touches her again

There should be a foul called on B1. You're right, neither touch amounts to much but some might argue standing and holding the ball for minutes at a time isn't great either (I know that's more aesthetic than rule-based but sometimes the two mix).

As for "placing and keeping a hand on the dribbler," I'll admit that can be a tough one to navigate. The ideas suggested to me have been:

*Dribber = 2 bounces
*BH = a count of two/the amount of time it used to take us to say "hands."

It is really quite simple, they want the hands completely off but are willing to forgive one touch. Sort of going back to how the game was played for decades before it devolved into a wrestling match in some areas.

Not that I am surprised, but you not seem to read these post long before that comment. And then I commented on my position right afterwards.


I know, only focus on my comments.

Peace

People here amaze me sometimes, but I should not be surprised at all!!!!
 

Again the real frustration is people are not reading. I never said anything about having problems with calling two hands on the dribbler or ball handler and calling a foul as a result.

John Adams became the coordinator of officials in 2008. I have been working college basketball before he got to that level. Every since Adams came into that position, he put in these what we now call "absolutes" into every video and training he attended. Adams also assigned the Horizon League which is in my back yard and before he became the NCAA head guy, I attended his clinics just about every year. Adams took the position before that we should call hand-checking more and I even worked a camp game in front of him where we were told to call hand-checking rather tightly. So I have bought in to that way of doing things long before the NF even addressed the issue. And as a college official, I was like many college Men's officials in my area that basically called the game that way. And I work HS games for my main college supervisor and he is also the head clinician of our state, who had to pick me to be a clinician for our state as well. Everything we have been taught to do, I do.

I never said once I have a problem with calling fouls for two hands. I have a problem when that interpretation is taken from NCAA Women's side and assume that it is applies directly to the NF rules. I have not seen any such interpretation and other than this conversation, I have yet to see any kind of position from my state people which includes the administrator (who assigns every playoff assignment in the state on the Boy's side) and the Head Clinician who teaches and gives interpretations for the entire state.

It is just amazing that people pick statements out of thin air and then try to claim you appear to feel the same in a different situation. Heck I like working with Men's college officials because they will call the game the way it is written and give little blow back to calling the game. For many of us that work Men's college, I did not have to debate with them how to call the game at the high school level because we have for years been doing it this way. I just do not agree to an element of this discussion, but it has nothing to do with calling the game by the rules or using the standard.

Peace

This is ironic.

I didn't say anything about two hands.

OK, two touches. I did not say I had a problem with that part of the rule. I said I had a problem with the time element that we are discussing.

Peace

Not sure but I think Rut just admitted that he made a mistake.

I admit to making mistakes all the time. We are not talking about mistakes, we are talking about opinions. There are not mistakes in opinions if they are based on facts and I have yet to hear anyone give a fact saying what we should call. I actually asked my people what we are to do and the blowback is opinions of what others think the NF meant.

Again, this is why this place is funny.

Peace

An assumption that I do not know is true or not.

The difference is that someone in the NCAA-W made it clear, nobody with the NFHS has done so yet.

That's how I look at it. Most likely that first touch should have been a foul in the first place.

I have never, never, never had 2 separate touches considered a single act that needs to penalized from any basketball authority I've ever listened to. But I have heard on multiple occasions that, specifically, the "hot stove" needs to be called. And I first heard that was at least 8-9 years ago.

No, distance and location were put in by JMF (post #24) as an example of what the NCAA-W wants called as a foul. And he has made the assumption that the NFHS wants the same interpretation. This is why I asked if anybody had actually posted something from the NFHS. If that's what the NFHS wants, I have no problem with it. But so far, I haven't seen it. And as we can see by this thread, there are at least 3 officials who work NCAA-M's ball who, based on our experiences, do not have the same interpretation as the NCAA-W.

Let me add another wrinkle that has come my at meetings...

East-West versus North South....

Are you calling it any differently if ball handler is moving east west versus north south?

We had someone from Referee at one of our meetings and let's just say he's very close to the process. He told us:

(1) There's no time element
(2) E-W vs. N-S doesn't matter
(3) There's no difference with respect to a player and where he has the ball. If he has the ball in the post, for example, and there's two touches or a touch with two hands, or an extended forearm -- it is a foul.

I expect there will be further clarification on all this. At least I hope there will be. Still, everything is local. A state's wishes will supersede the NFHS's 100% of the time.

To both you and BNR...

I never said you were the first, or the only, one to insert a distance factor into the discussion. But your claim that you hadn't put distance in was wrong. You did put a distance factor into the discussion.

So again for both you and BNR...what is the maximum distance at which you will no longer call a second touch a foul?

I'll know it when I see it. More than likely, whether it's the first or second touch, I'll be judging each touch on it's own merits unless I consider the multiple touches as "hot stove" touching. But what about:

How come it is common sense not to call this as a foul? At what time and distance is common sense eliminated and a foul shall be called?

I promised myself I wouldn't make any more posts in this thread but as with Michael Corleone "just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in"

NCAAM's 10.1.4 (at least part of it) is worded differently than NCAAW's so of course we're going to have different viewpoints. However, my view is based on the fact the wording in the NFHS and NCAAW rules regarding the second touch is the same, i.e., it's a foul.



None of this surprises me and thankfully the post element was clarified by Theresia Wynns in the latest Referee. You're right in that states are going to do what they want to do but there are only a certain number of changes states are supposed to be able to adopt and only one of them comes under Rule 10 (10.5.1 - the coaching box). Here's to hoping more clarification is on the way.

Isn't that exactly what the NF is trying to get rid of? Your "I'll know it when I see it" is different from your partners, and the next crew, and the next, etc...

So make it simple...a second touch with the same or alternate hands is a foul. And voila - there is no need to judge each touch on it's own merits - a second touch is a foul. Don't do it. They get the message really quickly.

2 minutes apart? Seriously? When was the last game you worked where one kid dribbled for 2 minutes?

I've never had a problem calling contact on dribblers, so the rule isn't targeting me. I don't need to wait for 2 touches 30' and 10 seconds apart. I get the first one.

In HS...I have worked more than a handful of games where a kid has held the ball for 1-2 minutes as a delaying tactic.

And you still didn't answer the question. What is the arbitrary time limit where you don't dismiss the question with a response of "seriously"?

OK...I will not work a game this season without a shot clock. HS games all have either 30 or 35 second shot clocks here. So I won't see a 2 minute time frame that you are so worried about.

To answer your question - which by the way you have yet to do for my question - as long as that player is still a ballhandler, that defender may not touch them a second time with either hand. There is no time limit and there is no distance limit for me.

Now...what is your arbitrary distance where you will no longer call the second touch a foul without dismissing the question by asking another question?

The post element was already cleared up. It's the very last case play in the case book.

I was responding to someone else making a claim that the NCAAW's interpretation is the NF interpretation. And that is why I asked my state administrator for his take to clarify if that was the case. His opinion is that RSBQ should play a role of the touches are that far apart on either touch.

I do not have a maximum distance, because I consider these acts to be at one basket time. If you touch once and it does not change the RSBQ of the ball handler and you get beat or back off significantly and several seconds are going by, the next touch should be judge on its own merits. To me one touch-two touch has to come about in the same sequence or time frame. And I also have no problem calling these fouls when they take place. I just find the NCAAW's interpretation to be inappropriate unless the NF says otherwise, which it appears they have not addressed the NCAAW's interpretation.

Peace

Same here. The first touch is often a foul. Players cannot help themselves most of the time. Then when you call it a few times, you do not have to call it again in the same way.

Peace

JAR brought it up since some of you were insistent that a second touch, no matter how long and how far from the first touch, had to be a foul. Some of us do not work HS games that have shot clocks (imagine that), so some of us work games where a PG will dribble out the last 1-2 minutes of a quarter. So based on your interpretation of the rule, if that PG had a hand touch him when he first received the ball in the backcourt with 1:56 remaining, then got touched again with 0:10 remaining, that is an automatic foul. But your response to calling a foul in that situation when I post it was "seriously". Now you are changing up and saying you would call a foul. Not my fault you had to be a smart-a$$ because it was too much to consider that the shot clock is not universal.


I don't have a time limit or distance limit. I'll continue to do what I do until the FED interprets the "second touch" has anytime, anywhere.

That used to be a consideration, that no longer applies. These are fouls, but the only issue is a time element is if they are two different events, rather than the same event as I believe the rule is covering.

Peace

Exactly. I only work one high school set of games with a shot clock an that is in a Christmas high level tournament. I will work 4 games in that tournament every year. But every other game is no shot clock and at the end of many quarters, a player might hold the ball for near a minute and 2 minutes is not out of the question either.

These rules that were put into place, has just justified how I have been calling the game for the most part for years. The "second touch" anytime and anywhere is a new element I have never heard discussed previously. And that is why I asked my people for their answer. I will even talk to the head clinician this weekend as he has a college meeting we must attend as he is the supervisor. I will ask his take for further clarification. But something tells me the NF is not going to address this directly.

Peace

Didn't realize you still worked a lot of HS games. Most of the stuff you posted here referenced NCAA-M interps. So the "seriously" comment was warranted.
And I didn't change anything. But you keep getting your panties in a wad if you want to.

This a HS discussion, right? Again, not my fault what assumptions you decide to make. I never brought a NCAA-Men's interpretation into the discussion.

Only folks flipping out are people like you who insist all interpretations of a rule should be based on your context only. But I can be a jerk also, if need be. It's really not that hard has evidence by you.

I kind of agree with BNR here. The NCAA M/W rule is irrelevant to this discussion. The NFHS rule is different than those 2. The only time it would be relevant is in those states that choose to apply the NCAA rule as an interpretation.

The NFHS rule clearly doesn't say any time or distance should be accounted for. Now reasonable minds can agree/disagree about this, however as it was stated earlier the rep from Referee Magazine has said that time and distance is irrelevant.

I am not a NASO Member currently, what was said in Referee Magazine?

I did see some comments where Mrs. Wynn addressed some quick questions, but I do not recall this specific issue being addressed. Or was this someone else's comments that I am not aware of at this time?

Peace

Other than you being upset by me asking the question "Seriously?", exactly when was I a jerk to you? I asked you to give me a time and distance limitation...you got your feelings hurt by that?

I am going to suspect that no one here is upset or hurt by your comments. I think the fact is that you did not read the comments that started this conversation about this issue of time and distance between touches. You went after me saying I was creating a personal issue/interpretation that was previously discussed by others using a level that many of us here do not work or know about. Then you dismissed a point of view as if it was silly and when asked a question in return, you blow it off with "seriously?"

Right or wrong, this is a healthy discussion and should be treated as such. This is why I asked my higher ups what they thought and did they feel the NCAAW's interpretation should apply to the high school game in my state. But what tends to be sad sometimes is that people cannot separate their personal feelings towards people to have a serious discussion about facts that were mentioned in the actual topic. Rather they would like to assume someone is ignoring a rule because it does not fit their position that was never addressed by the main governing body.

Peace

The problem is that the NF rule and the NCAA-W rule is NOT different. Other than the order of the 4 points (a,b,c,and d) they are the same wording.

Rich already mentioned this.

Agree with this 100%. Instead of our judgement deciding if the 4 absolutes affected RSBQ, the NFHS has decided that the 4 absolutes affect RSBQ no matter what.

The fundamental point behind these changes is that all of the rules making bodies are trying get defenders to not defend ball handlers (defined differently by each organization) using their hands.

After years of not being successful in getting officials at all levels to apply proper judgement on these calls, they have decided to take judgement out of these situations entirely and make them absolutes.

Anyone that tries to add judgement back into these four situations to justify not making a call is going against the principles the rules making bodies are trying to establish.

Now, if your entire state/organization decides they want to do it another way, fine, but it still is what it is....a deviation from the actual rules. If you apply judgement to any of the 4 absolutes, you are outside of the rules. They are not supposed to be judgement calls.

If this is the reasoning behind the wording concerning the two touches part of the rule, than they have based this part of the rule on something that is unequivocally false.

As is obvious from my earlier posts, I think the wording of the NCAA-M rule is much better on this particular point. That being said, I have no problem calling things I don't necessarily agree with. Luckily for me, JRut, and quite possibly BNR, our states and/or assignment chairs do not seem to want the rule called as written. Since the NFHS has nothing to do with any assignments I receive, and my main HS assignor is the head clinician for my state as well as one of my college assignors, I will continue to enforce the way I have the last few seasons using NCAA-M interpretation.

You should also suspect that I am not upset or hurt by anything here either...and I am not the one that called anyone names. Not my problem if BNR can't handle having a conversation.

I have no personal issues with either BNR or you...but it has been pointed out that the NF and NCAA-W rules are the same, and still people say "Nope, not gonna call it that way cause I'm going to use (fill in whatever you want to here)"...

Hmmmmmm. The same wording? Really?
 

NCAAM 10-1-4:

NCAAW 10-1-4:

NF 10-6-12 says:

Not sure how all of these are the same. Looks like different wording to me. :rolleyes:

Peace

They are not the same. I just posted all the rules from the 3 codes and they are actually different. Are they referencing similar actions? Yes they are. But NCAA Men's has a different take on their situation, so I am not so sure why NCAA Women's interpretations is something the NF must adopt or they agree with that interpretation on this one play we are discussing that is not referenced in the casebook?

Again, if the National Federation wants to take on the interpretation directly from NCAA Women's, that is their right to do so. But they have not mentioned this in their literature as far as I can tell and it appears that only NCAA Women's officials here are making this case that the NF shares their philosophy. I do not assume that all of a sudden the NF took on the NCAA Men's point of view or interpretation on this situation. Heck I was surprised when the NF and the IHSA even mentioned RSBQ in the first place last year. I see three codes that cover the same actions in their own language. And to assume that only one is special to the NF is just not accurate.

Peace

Why did you add the NCAA-M rule again? The NF rule and the NCAA-W are the same. But you got me...I said the "wording" was the same when I should have said the rules were the same. Good on you.

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

Not that it matters to anyone in the rest of the country, but this discussion prompted me to ask my assignor about the main point of contention in this discussion. He told me that he's had several discussions with the NF on this subject and the intent of the rule is definitely not to consider a single touch followed by another touch several seconds later as an absolute foul. The second touch might be a foul, but only if it affects the RSBQ of the ball handler - it would not be an absolute based on the rule. The hot stove touching, as BNR has described, is an absolute. He told me you can't take a literal interpretation of every single rule - common sense has to prevail. So this is how I will be interpreting the rule - pretty much as BNR and JRut have described. I think it makes sense.

The problem I see in this discussion, many people are unwilling to do that very thing. Instead they are taking their personal background and assuming it applies to this situation without an direct guidance. That is why I asked my people as well, because I wanted to be sure what I was being asked to do. Telling us that "The rule is clear" is not good enough when we are having a serious debate and the parties are separated based on their NCAA background.

Peace

*The way I read this is that 1:56 - 0:51 = 1:04 time has elapsed since the A1 dribbler had been touched by B1 (defensive player). Also, when you described that B1 had been physically positioned at minimum 10 feet away from A1 (i.e., you said that Team B coach instructed team to "fall back") for a period of time = 1:04 (a long time) when there was no contact, then A1 had gone for 1:04 without ever have been 'touched' by B1. Also, I will infer from your description that the score difference was such that forcing Team A into the bonus by 'quick fouling' by Team B's coach was not considered strategic (i.e., no reason to delay an imminent defeat).
In this specific context, the game Official needs to consider "time" and "situation". I'm sorry, but I would not call a foul on a second touch that transpired 1:04 after the first 'touch' in this scenario. I admit that I would use common sense, so please crucify my post now;)

Why 5? Why not 3 or 7? What is the cutoff? Remember they want consistency without the need for judgement. How far apart does it take for it to not be a foul?

And I do think that, practically and logically, it should actually be like that, but where do we draw the line such that it is consistently applied?

Unless they add a new count for "between defensive touches", there can be no reasonable answer to that question. It ends up being common sense and judgment, just like a lot of other rules.

But that is why we are in this place to start with. They have already decided and communicated that, after years of trying to get officials to apply good judgment to these situations, it wasn't working. The level of judgement officials were applying was not good enough. So, they made them absolutes with no judgement required.

It it an absolute or has nothing really changed? Are all of the absolutes really just open to some non-defined level of judgement?

My problem with the literal interpretation of the rule being advocated by some here is that it completely takes common sense out of the equation; like the common sense that tells not to call 3 seconds if somebody heels is on the lane line.

Plus you have things like I stated earlier with delay statics that occur where I officiate. You also have what JRut just brought up, where the first touch occurs in one official's primary, then a subsequent touch occurs in another's primary. That is going to occur quite often on plays where there is defensive pressure in the back court and the C picks up the play in the frontcourt.

The NFHS have proven enough times in the past that they do not always do a great job of having what's in ink match what is intended in reality.

I think you're far too tunnel visioned on this one specific scenario. The absolutes are still there - it's just when the multiple single touches are not immediate - that's where our judgement has to take over. I like the explanation I was given - it's clear enough and it makes sense.

Do you think it is better, for the sake of consistency, to make an edict stating it is absolutely a foul every time the same defender touches a ball handler more than once, even if neither touch, taken individually, is a foul? That philosophy makes no sense at all. Taken literally, the rule swings the pendulum way too far in the other direction. Two touches, neither of which individually are fouls, separated by time and distance were not where the problem of poor judgment was occurring. The problem was multiple, continuous touches that were not being called. The NCAA-M rule makes more sense logically, is more in line with the rest of the rule book in regards to what constitutes a foul, and makes more sense mechanistically (unless you want to encourage more ball watching).

By the literal reading of the rule, yes.

Yes, that's why I said it's unenforceable.

I find trying to read the minds of the rule committee to be an exercise in futility. I will readily agree with you that they often don't want the rules enforced the way they write them.

Most rules are not literal. Most rules are written and then there interpretations are there to suggest how we enforce or apply the rules. And it it is unenforceable, why would anyone suggest that this is the rule if someone claims you cannot enforce this consistently?

We cannot even have the NF agree on their interpretations about backcourt violation or what their language means. But the same people that complain about this issue, are the same people wanting to stick with an interpretation.

Peace

Yes...and so does the NCAA...both men an women. That is the point of the 4 absolutes. Of course, the specific absolutes can be and have been defined somewhat differently. I can imagine several occurrences of all four of the absolutes that I would not previously have called a foul. The NCAA and the NFHS decided that the judgement we were all applying to these plays, after years to POEs was not good enough. So, they took the judgement away (in slightly different ways).
Maybe, or maybe those in charge felt that those touches should have often been fouls too. If not for an advantage, why does a defender need to ever put their hands on the ball handler? They split the difference and give the one defender on minor touch for free.
Not really, two touches, back to back, neither of which would be fouls on their own just because they happen within 3-4 seconds are not any more a foul than touches that happen 10 or more seconds apart.

But again, I don't like the timeless element because I do agree that it really is not what they wanted to eliminate and it would be impractical to administer consistently across coverage areas.

Had a meeting last night. I asked our area coordinator about this discussion. His take was....

By the literal wording of the rule, it would be a foul. He then said there was no way he was calling a foul for the second touch that happened in the frontcourt, 10 seconds after the first touch in the backcourt.

He also said that if you have a touch and then the ball handler and the defensive player get outside the 6 FT legal guarding requirements and then re-engage and there is a second touch, he didn't think he would call a foul for that second touch. Unless it affected RSBQ.

I think to keep trying to make this point that the literal wording of the rule is silly. Either that was the intent of the rule or it was not.

I will give some of you credit, at least you are asking people you work for instead of just taking some interpretation from the NCAA and considering it law.

Peace

Appreciate it.

We had a little one day clinic/camp deal today and the clinician/rules guy said he had conferred with our head state guy on this issue and that our interpretation is to be multiple touches while the defender is actively engaged with the ballhandler.


Touch......back way off........step up and touch again= nothing automatic

Even though I have debated this point on the other side from the perspective of what the rules actually say, I'm hoping that is the way it eventually works out.

Something like...two touches while the defender continuously stays within a closely guarded distance.

I asked the question "Is time a factor?" He said that yes it was but 15 seconds was the longest it could be anyway, 10 in the backcourt 5 closely guarded. I didn't mention the fact that one could lose his LGP and still be close enough to touch because I think I got the point he was making and, like you, I think it is reasonable.

PLus, it could be 10 in the back court and (almost) 10 in the front court if the player dribbles across for 5 seconds and then holds the ball for 5 seconds.

Even in the just FC it coul be (almost) 15 for hold-dribble-hold

I agree Cam. Keeping it within the scope of the same defensive encounter makes the most sense to me - hope it settles out that way. Maybe this question needs to get booted to our SRI so we can get a clear interpretation.

Even 25 is possible....just short of ten holding the ball straddling the division line then pivoting into the frontcourt for 5+5+5 more.

I talked with our Assignor/Interpreter last night, after our Rules Clinic. I told him about the discussion, here, regarding 10-12, multiple touches. I told him about the idea of a closely-guarded situation being a possible guideline.
He ended our discussion by saying that the concept seems reasonable, and that will be the interpretation in our state.
The only concern I have from our discussion, is that when I introduced the subject, he seemed to have had no idea that it could be an issue. Hopefully, the disemination of that interpretation will be forthcoming.
We'll see how it plays out. We're still 4 weeks away from our HS season, although fall leagues are in full swing.

Does he have a say in your state's rules interpretations?

Yes, he works for the State High School Activities Assn., and is their voice regarding any interpretations.

Heard here last night:

One touch may or may not be a foul, depending on if it affects RSBQ.

The second touch by the same defender in the same "guarding situation" (I think that's the wording used -- meaning the max 15 seconds of the closely guarded counts, if in the FC) is automatic. Two hands, extended arm bar, one hand left on are also automatics.

Well had another meeting tonight where this issue was discussed. Basically there is no such "second touch" automatic fouls for the situation that we were discussing here. RSBQ was referenced several times and I will likely get the PowerPoint and show what was stated from the IHSA people.

As I said, the NCAAW interpretation does not apply here and never was intended to be.

Peace