Let me try this again. I never said that two hands on a ball handler was not a foul. Actually extended arms in my opinion are fouls pretty much every time when both hands are on the ball handler. I know in Illinois, it was talked about in situations where hands might touch a ball handler, but are not extended or are retreating as not fitting in these guidelines which are now rules.

Peace

.

Where the original question about the second touch via: The Rookie

Interesting, but "second touch" reference is not "two hands" in my opinion. I thought we were originally talking about a touch at one point and several feet later, we have another touch. Maybe I missed part of this debate, but that is not the same thing IMO.

Peace

RSBQ is a philosophy on how to consistently apply the written rules. I would never suggest that RSBQ is not about what is already written in the current rules. And it also considers 4-27 so that you just do not call a foul because there is contact.

Well this is NCAA 10-1-4:

While NF 10-6-12 says:

These are basically the same thing or language.

The NCAA does a better job through Rule 10-1 to describe when is or isn't a foul throughout the rest of the section.

Peace

2013-14 NFHS Basketball Rules p.68 POE 3. Guidelines to Enforce Illegal Contact. When contact occurs that affects the rhythm, speed, quickness and balance of the player, illegal contact must be called. (italic added)

To whom it may concern.

I went to a meeting tonight where the Boys Basketball Administrator was speaking. After his comments to the group, I asked him directly after the meeting about this interpretation that it appears NCAA Women's officials are stuck on. Well in Illinois, this one touch at one part of the court and another touch several feet later up the court was not considered a foul unless RSBQ was affected. He even made it clear the first touch could be a foul if RSBQ was affected, but it would not be an "automatic" if the second touch happen at a different time. And this is a person that says that we should call the game by the rules and not pick and choose. So it appears at least in Illinois, the NCAA Women's interpretation does not apply.

He even said that him and the other administrator would have to discuss the issue as I made him aware that there are NCAA Women's officials that are trying to apply interpretations to the NF rules, but it appears he does not support that position as we have talked about here.

Peace

JRut, it's not a matter of me or any other NCAAW's official "trying to apply interpretations to the NF rules." The language in the NFHS rule as it relates to the "absolutes" is the same as NCAAW's. Like it or not, any state that determines a second touch on the BH/dribbler isn't a foul won't be following the NFHS rule set.

In NCAAW the first touch can also be a foul if RSBQ is affected. I called that more than a few times in the past year in my college and GV games. But if there's a second touch it's a foul, regardless of RSBQ. Earlier you posted NCAAM 10-1-4. Here's NCAAW 10-1-4:

They're ordered differently from the NFHS rule but the criteria are the same. That's why those of us who work NCAAW have been more than a little vocal.

The rule does not say anything about a second touch with an extended period of distance and lapse as a foul. The casebook has two plays with the new rules being considered and no such interpretation. Now what do we do when there is no clear interpretation coming from the National Federation? You go to your state organization and ask them (that is what the NF says) and in my state there is no such interpretation of the rule. Sorry, but anyone trying to suggest this is a foul is taking it from another level, like Women's NCAA officials or trying to create an interpretation based off of what they "think" it should be. And unless the NF comes up with some kind of language to suggest that should be called, you are speculating their intent. All I know, is in the NF literature, there is no such interpretation. And they could clear this up by putting something in their Casebook and they did not do that in this case.


That is great, but I see nothing in that rule alone that says the second touch at a different part of the court (Significant or delayed time and distance contact) that this is a foul under NCAAW Rules. Now I am sure there was an interpretation from the NCAAW Committee or your people and that is fine, but not such comment was made on the Men's side. All videos I have seen clearly talks about these situations that are basically one after the other or immediate.

Jet, this is not my first rodeo. I have done basketball at different levels and other sports at different levels for years. NCAA often has an interpretation that does not apply to the NF level. Just because a rule has a similar language, does not mean the powers that be want the same application in every case. And now with the NCAA splitting up rules by gender, it is clear that even at that level there is not the same take of the rules even when the rules are the same. I have never seen an NCAAM's video suggesting the play we are discussing here is a foul. That was the case when the rulebooks were not separated and now you want to try to convince us that the NF who is a completely separate body all together wants only the NCAAW's interpretation? OK, go with that one. That is not very logical if you ask me. And certainly not very logical if you consider the many other differences we point out on this site between the two NCAA committees alone. Heck the NF did not even take on the NCAA language of either rule set. Now you want me to assume that NCAAW is so special that the NF only decided to use their rules? Sorry, but if they cannot do that in football and baseball, why would I believe the NF would do that in basketball?

Peace

Sooooo...just to make sure I understand this all correctly:

The NF rule says it is a foul if the defender contacts the ball handler more than once with the same hand or alternating hands.

Mr. Rutledge says he won't call that if there is some undetermined amount of time between the first touch and the second touch.

So my question is: What is that undetermined amount of time? Are you going to count the number of steps the ballhandler takes between defensive touches? 4 or fewer steps will result in a foul call, while 5 or more will result in no foul being called? Or will it be a certain number of seconds off the clock between touches?

Can you show the exact quote where I said I would not call the second touch? Or did you read me say that RSBQ would be a factor in that kind of play?

And if you have to ask all those questions, then the rule does not have a definitive answer to begin with. IJS.

Peace

Here's the problem. The 4 NFHS absolutes don't mention RSBQ, or time or distance between touches. They rule says if you do A,B,C, or D then a foul is to be called.

RSBQ is referenced with illegal contact. It is not referenced with the absolutes. But the play we are talking about, is not an absolute. None of what we are talking about applies to A, B, C or D. And all rules have an spirit or intent. Sorry, but I do not think the committee envisioned a touch 70 feet from the basket would be considered a foul if the second touch takes place 10 feet from the basket by the same player. Better yet, the wording does not even say same or different player and I doubt the interpretation or the intent of the rule was to have different players be apart of this situation.

Again you cannot say what the rules says and add to the interpretation and then get mad when others judge the interpretation of states that want to make it clear how they want to the rules to apply. The coaching box rule does not say that if a toe is outside the line you call a Technical foul either and I doubt in any situation where that takes place, you or many here are calling a T. But the rule is the rule right?

Peace

Let's see...Posts #26, 46, 49, and 83.

I am sure you are capable of going back and looking at them. After all, you are a clinician in your state.

And I don't HAVE to ask all these questions. I already understand how they want this called. I just want you to pin down your definition of when the defender touching the ballhandler a second time with the same or alternating hands IS and IS NOT a foul.

Pretty simple question...let's see if you can actually answer it.

Yes I did say I was not calling what was described because it did not fit the rule and RSBQ would be a factor. And yes, I am a State Clinician that calls a lot of handchecking type fouls. If you want to know, look on line. Just about all my playoff games last year were on video. You can look at those calls and decide for yourself.

Oh, High School Cube and the IHSA Network for my Super-Sectional. All still there. If you want the specific links, I can help you there too. ;)

I only asked questions to prove point. And it is clear that those here that did any research had the information. Remember, I was not alone in my stance. And it was clear that once again, Women's officials wanted to make their philosophies apply to the NF when the rules and philosophies are often different from each other. As I said, this was a POE in our state last year before a rule. What they wanted was beat into our head extensively before the season. And no where did a foul apply in the type of play that was being discussed. I just did. ;)

Peace

I interpret 10-6-12d as the repeated hot stove touch, not touching A1 at the 28' line in the backcourt, then again 40' up the court. Can somebody point me to where the NFHS has said they wanted called this way (2 separate touches 40' apart)? If I missed it somewhere in this thread I apologize.