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.