Every video example I've seen regarding repeated touching has been just as you've described.

I think that may make the most sense but it isn't how the rule is currently written.

Basically, it seems they're saying they'll give a defender a mulligan for 1 touch and 1 touch only as long as it doesn't affect RSBQ but are not going to give repeated exceptions. I see it more that they simply want the hands completely off but are going to be merciful once.

Well, since several folks are telling JRut he is crazy I thought there was some sort of definitive statement from the NFHS. I've always interpreted a repeated touch as the "hot stove". This 30/40/50' thing is something I never once envisioned as an interpretation until it was brought up in this thread.

OK, so I will ask you also...what is the distance (or time lag) between touches that will constitute whether it is a foul or not?

3 steps and then it is ok to touch a second time? 8 steps?

The rule seems pretty clear.

You know, if I'm wrong I'm wrong (and I don't think I am since I've had to call the rule with the same language for the past year) but I'm just confused: How is the phrase "contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands" open for interpretation?

We say a lot about the way NFHS phrases things in the rule book but if there was a time component involved it's highly likely it would have been written into the rule. If the interpretation is to allow a defender to touch once, wait some unknown amount of time/distance, touch again, wait again and touch again what was the purpose of making 10-6-12 a rule and changing the language that had been in the PoE in years past?

How is it open for interpretation? How about spirit and intent? Repeated touching has always referred to "hot stove" touching in any discussion I have on the subject.

All of a sudden when it's convenient to an argument, are we going act like the NFHS does a great job of writing a rule in ink the same way they actually intended for it be adjudicated on the court?

I have always interpreted "hot stove" as meaning one touch, immediately removed.

To you, but obviously not to everyone. I have never my career ever heard that there is a problem of defenders putting their hands on a ball-handler twice or more without it being specifically targeted at "hot stove" touching. I have heard an observer/supervisor/clinician say "hey, we can't let a defender put his hand on a ball-handler once in the backcourt, and then again in the frontcourt" (or whatever distance you want to incorporate).

Not around here. One touch = sizing up; 2 or more = hot stove.

Here's the intent from the NFHS:

Quote:

Rather than continuing to make illegal contact a point of emphasis, a new criteria for foul enforcement was created. 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.

Again, when we had the language put to us last year in NCAAW there weren't a lot of warm and fuzzies about spirit and intent. The intent was to let the kids move to get more scoring so the game was better to watch and to provide uniformity in terms of enforcement since some of us (collectively) have lousy judgment. Many rules have a "spirit" component to them but if NFHS is doing this for the same reason NCAAW did - and it appears that's the case - this rule is about cold-blooded enforcement.

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