My mistake, Johnny (and everyone else). Welpe's post shows the language in the NFHS rule. It's essentially taken from NCAAW. The NCAAM element of the rule - if you will - is there's no distinction made for players in/near the lane since NFHS doesn't define the lane area.

I've corrected the original post where you took my quote.

So now we're back to using our judgment in certain situations which the rule tried to remove...because we were letting too much go in the past. Here's what NFHS has as the intent of the rule:

The intent is to clean up perimeter play and restore freedom of movement to the game. The new rule clearly explains specific contact that should be called a foul. This criteria should provide for more understanding of illegal contact for coaches and players, and improved enforcement by officials.

Maybe I'm giving NFHS too much credit but if the goal was to have time limits on touches in the rule they'd have been included.

The rule does not come from either side of the NCAA, these were NCAA rules not a rule specific to gender. These were guidelines first, then put into actual rules, but were followed either way for years. NCAA Men's side wanted the contact to stop and made that clear it did not matter where it took place on the court. That is what the videos indicated and the comments from Adams indicated.

Peace

JetMet, not a problem. As I said, I hadn't read the NFHS rule yet, and was told it was the same as the NCAA-M, which is obviously not the case. Since this became a rule after they started doing separate books for men and women, I did not know what was in the women's rule. I was just pointing out that the NCAA-M rule does imply that time between touches should be considered.

The NFHS rule doesn't either. But say we're in the front court, closely guarded situation and the defender puts a hand on the ball handler. Now say 4 seconds has elapsed and the closely guarded situation has gone away. Now another 4 seconds goes by and the same defender puts his hand on the same ball handler. Are you going to call a foul?

I think that, in order to be applied consistently, a separation of time will have to erase the fact that there was a touch.

Coverage of a play currently changes through the course of action based on primaries. If we are to consider a prior touch from a long time before, there would have to be some way for each official to know what the other officials already saw OR an official would stay on a matchup anywhere on the court if player control had begun in their primary. Neither are practical or even likely to be consistent.

It does't say so in the rule, but I'd suggest that the only way this can be consistently applied is for a prior touch to be ignored if there is enough space between the players such that it is not the same match-up situation....i.e. no closely guarded count.

To give a definitive answer, I would have to see a specific play. I know part of the reason for going to these automatics is to make these calls more consistent and eliminate differences in judgment, but with an 8 second separation between touches, I am still treating this as a judgment call. I would lean towards no, I am not calling a foul in the situation described. Establish/maintaining closely guarded position is not written into the rule, but I am most likely treating this as two separate plays once the closely guarded situation is lost. I think the NFHS and NCAA-W are making a mistake by not including the qualifier, continually, found in the NCAA-M wording.

Luckily for me, the few HS games I officiate each season are played in an area where the vast majority of coaches, players, officials, and assignors would view two touches separated by a significant amount of time, the same way I do, as two separate plays. Therefore, I do not expect to have any problems using more of an NCAA-M philosophy in this particular instance.

Cameron brings up a good point here. Depending upon where the first touch occurred, there is a good possibility I wont even be aware of it. Further, most times, I am not staying with a play once it leaves my primary, so there is a good chance I wouldn't see the second touch.

Yes, but I understand where Cameron and Johnny d are coming from in relation to the play. Since I worked under the NCAAW rule in 90% of my games last season I got into the habit of saying "one" to myself when the first touch was made so the second wasn't a surprise. I'll say I was more likely to see the second - even if there was a decent amount of time between touches - during a GV game because those were 2-person and the PCA is larger. I picked up a couple in NCAAW games but those players generally passed the ball more often.

I don't look at it as going back to using judgement because I haven't stopped using judgement. Every rule, no matter how black & white it seems, will have nuances that require officials to use good judgement to enforce rules. The best, most professional refs use their experience, knowledge, and skill to judge when and how to apply the rules in all situations. Hopefully, the large majority in our profession are working hard everyday to gain experience, learn, and improve as refs. But refs who blow a whistle just because a rule says it can be blown (not based on judgement) are no better than refs who don't make calls because they lack the understanding or desire to apply the rules correctly. Both are signs of incompetence or inexperience.

In another thread today about calling a double dribble there are some very experienced refs saying they would leave it alone if they were far from the play which shows that even though it is a clearly written rule good refs use judgement when making calls. What about MS girls games or that book that isn't quite ready 10 minutes prior to game time or the countless other examples of times in the past when good refs have considered the circumstances surrounding the event to make a judgement about how to enforce rules.

Those of us who, using our good judgement, were already calling these fouls will still call them. Some refs will start calling it now that it has been emphasized to the extreme and there will be some who still just don't get it.

The problem with that is that the NFHS has, for years, basically been telling us that, with respect to fouls on the ball handler, our judgement sucks. They tried saying it nicely with POEs and such.

So many went along thinking their judgement was fine and they must be talking to someone else that they have resorted to making it absolutes...pretty much taking judgement out of it. Why? Because those that thought their judgment was fine will still think so and will not get that the message is for them.


As for the double dribble situation, that isn't about judgement but an entirely different topic.

2 hands = foul.

Extended touch = foul.

Repeated touch = foul.

Extended arm arm bar = foul.

Those who try to apply personal judgment to this rather than blowing the whistle and calling the damned foul are going to make life hard for those of us who have committed to do our jobs.

Is that one an arm bar with both arms? :p

We had someone pretty close to all this at our association meeting last night.

There is no time or distance factor for the 2 touches. As long as the ball handler remains the ball handler and the defender is the same defender, one touch can be in the backcourt and one in the frontcourt and closely guarded is irrelevant -- it's a foul.

I'm not surprised that people are already looking for reasons to not call fouls -- it's why we have these automatics now in the first place, really.

No, that would be a (2 x arm) bar. :)