Yeah, but if there is a clear separation between touches, then I think that is not the actual intent of the rule. The rule is to stop constant using of hands on a ball handler. 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. I am still using the guide of RSBQ to help me decide when these are fouls anyway. And I call as many of these fouls as anyone. I am just still going to use common sense and there still is the rule for incidental contact. If someone from my state wants to suggest otherwise, then I will possibly change that opinion. But as of last year, we were told about RSBQ extensively and these rules were our state's POE on the topic.

Peace

How did your group decide how the T is to know the C had the first touch already when the play crosses primaries?

Jeff, You may not realize it but they're talking to you.

Well they are not talking to me, because our state and state administrator had already spoken about this a year ago with us. It was a statewide POE with the very same rules applied last year. There was even a Webinar to clarify the position from the Administrators in the sport. And we were calling more things than the NF suggested a year ago because that is stand or interpretation our state said how these situations should be called. And yes they used RSBQ (not my personal position) to describe how fouls should be called, along with the all other absolutes.

I know it is hard, but states have the right to make their position known. I have not heard anyone suggest that a touch in one area of the court means another touch in a completely different area of the court is a foul. I will wait for the video, but this discussion with all due respect is irrelevant to me as to what I will be calling.

Peace

Just to set the record straight...

I agree that all of the above are fouls that should be called and will be called when I'm on the floor. And, like many of you, I did not need to go from a POE to a rule for me to blow my whistle. I applied "good" judgement to do my job. But I still believe there will be situations that occur when a true professional may use "good" judgement and decide to not blow the whistle. I'm not advocating that we go looking for it, just allowing that maybe once a season it might happen and we should be open to it.

As for the second statement, those of us who have the judgement to know when to blow the whistle and when not to are also committed to do our jobs. The problem for all of us has been and always will be those who won't make the effort to get better or who apply their own set of rules/mechanics to the game, not those who on a few rare occassions apply judgement to rare situations . Unfortunately, the people this rule change was aimed at will still refuse to call these fouls because they either don't know better (incompetence, poor training) or they think they know better than the rest of us.

Some of us seem to be getting hung up on judgement. The job of a referree is all about judgement -- its the very nature of what we are supposed to do. All refs use judgement but what seperates good refs from bad refs is that we use "good" judgement.

We know. You'll do your own thing regardless of what the rules say. Not the first time.

BTW, I'm not talking about the well separated 1st and 2nd touch, just the use of RSBQ which the NFHS has basically said is not being applied correctly...that the player is being affected even though people are incorrectly justifying no calls under the guise of RSBQ. They're saying their RSBQ is being affected and people still are not calling it.

The use of RSBQ was referenced by our state basketball administrator (Boy's basketball to be specific). RSBQ was referenced in the State Rules Interpretation PowerPoint before the year (last year) when the state took a hard stance on these interpretations. It was talked about out of his mouth in the Webinar that the same person I referenced and it was talked about again by him at meetings throughout the state before and during the season. So no, it is not what I wanted to do or a personal interpretation, it was what they wanted us to do. I was even surprised when they used the language because it comes from high levels. But that is what they asked all clinicians to teach and repeat to their association membership and at camps, which I run from time to time.

Oh, and the NF when you contact them directly about an interpretation, they direct you to your state people for an interpretation. Oh, and this was before the rules changed once again the stance of the IHSA (similar to what happened to JAR when he contacted Ms. Wynn in the off season).

I know, I know, you want to tell everyone how the NF is the only body that can comment on rules and interpretations (silly rabbit). Just like my state has a different interpretation on uniforms (Board changed the policy and how the rule was interpreted about 4 years ago) or even had a policy about recognition of religious and special accommodations for those uniforms years before the NF even addressed the issue (it is in this year's NF PowerPoint, but the IHSA had the same policy for over 7 or 8 years based on situations that took place in this state).

So glad I do not have to listen to people like you about these things. You are not a member of the NF that gets to decide what states tell their officials and you obviously have no idea how different states take positions against the rules or interpretations of the National Federation based on your comments here. A similar situation even happened this year in football on the targeting rule and the free kick situations where my state took a different stance in order to bring clarity to a National Federation hole in their so-called new rules for this season.

And I must be doing something right, I advanced in the playoffs and one step from the highest level in my state (and I am a state clinician). So I must have no idea what I am talking about.

But hey, you know. :rolleyes:

Peace

You can't have it both ways. In one post, you're claiming that the new rule means one thing and in another you're saying your state decided to do something different that what the rule says. Once you can make up your mind, choose one story.

I am telling you what our state said about this issue last year, before the NF made it an actual rule. How do you think the NF comes up with rules? They come up with rules that their membership votes on or suggests. You think that my state along with others might have suggested a rules change or change in the language to reflect what the NCAA was doing? Oh, the NCAA uses RSBQ as their interpretation as well and put in the rules the "absolutes" or guidelines for hand-checking and other contact with ball handler.

For the record, this is a conversation stated by someone other than me from my state.

New Rules and handchecking

My comments back in May of this year



Peace

Will this ultimately be treated differently than a lot of other things in the book? Enforcement/interpretation of a rule varies tremendously from game to game and official to official. The biggest problem I have here is the conflict between the black and white language of the rule and the concept of advantage/disadvantage. Late in the game with fouls to give B1 can body up aggressively. If A1 starts to turn the corner on him just give a couple of quick touches and the play starts over again. Or will this raise the question of calling intentional for the two quick touches?

Funny, but we didn't have a whole lot of "yeah, but..." conversations about the guidelines when they told us to call them in NCAAW last year. The rule says the second touch is a foul. Period. There's no time element. There's no worry about whether B1 does it just for the sake of not being beat on a drive. There's no RSBQ, at least when it comes to this rule.

The fact enforcement/interpretation varies from game to game and official to official is why they put the guidelines in effect in the first place. The goal is to get rid of those variances because we (collectively) hadn't been doing a great job using our judgment. If everyone just follows the letter of the law as opposed to trying to figure out the "intent" or "spirit" of the rule on their own, the rule works. If we as a collective don't do that it all goes into the toilet. It's that simple.

As to the idea of calling an intentional foul because B1 puts two quick touches on A1 when A1 beats them on a move, 4-19-3a & c are really the only rules that could be applied and both might be considered a stretch. Let's not turn simple math into calculus. If B1 wants to do that, (s)he will be able to do that a maximum of five times. My guess is B1's HC will have them sitting for a while if (s)he pulls that move more than once unless it's an end-of-game situation.

Agreed.

RSBQ comes into play on judging the first touch, not any subsequent touch.

Judgment comes in on deciding whether an arm bar is collapsed or extended, or exacly when a player has moved from a "post player" to a "ball handler" (that latter distinction is not relevant in FED).

The post player becomes a ball handler as soon as they possess the ball.

Thank you gentlemen, particularly bob since he has clarified that most of Illinois too is on the same page and that there are only a few that will do their own thing.

I think I agree with this above all else in this thread.

The guy who brought up the closely guarded idea I said earlier was a college official who also does high school. He said they were told to allow a "measure up" touch and that any other touch while closely guarded was a foul. If not closely guarded then the next touch is like a first touch.