Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, obviously it is less than a 5 second timeframe for multiple touches in the front court.

I'm not sure that's obvious. There's nothing in the rule itself that limits it to a single closely guarded situation. If B1 touches A1, then A1 retreats from being closely guarded and B1 reapproaches A1, who has continuously maintained possession, and touches him, B1 has fouled by the plain language of the rule even if the second touch happens outside of 5 seconds of the first touch.

I think that's unenforceable for reasons discussed previously but it wouldn't be the first time we've seen a rule that cannot be reliable refereed.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

...
I think that's unenforceable for reasons discussed previously but it wouldn't be the first time we've seen a rule that cannot be reliable refereed.

I'm just gonna start having amnesia. First touch in the backcourt will just magically vanish from my mind.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I'm not sure that's obvious. There's nothing in the rule itself that limits it to a single closely guarded situation. If B1 touches A1, then A1 retreats from being closely guarded and B1 reapproaches A1, who has continuously maintained possession, and touches him, B1 has fouled by the plain language of the rule even if the second touch happens outside of 5 seconds of the first touch.

I think that's unenforceable for reasons discussed previously but it wouldn't be the first time we've seen a rule that cannot be reliable refereed.

Well what about the first touch in the back court with the T and then the ball handler goes into the C's primary and is touched again? Is the second touch a foul? No time limit right? Is that not in injustice if the C does not call the second touch that he did not even know there was a first touch? You really think the rules makers had that as the intention? And if that is their position, why did they not just come out and give that as an example since it is so clear to everyone? I do not work Two man, so this situation is very likely in my world.


Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, obviously it is less than a 5 second timeframe for multiple touches in the front court.

But, seriously you really think they used the word tagging to mean something that happened 25 seconds apart? Sorry, but I'm not going to let you play dumb for this interp. You know exactly what they meant by tagging. It's quite obvious to anybody with any kind of basketball officiating intelligence, which I know you have.

Why 5? Why not 3 or 7? What is the cutoff? Remember they want consistency without the need for judgement. How far apart does it take for it to not be a foul?

And I do think that, practically and logically, it should actually be like that, but where do we draw the line such that it is consistently applied?

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why 5? Why not 3 or 7? What is the cutoff? Remember they want consistency without the need for judgement. How far apart does it take for it to not be a foul?

And I do think that, practically and logically, it should actually be like that, but where do we draw the line such that it is consistently applied?

Unless they add a new count for "between defensive touches", there can be no reasonable answer to that question. It ends up being common sense and judgment, just like a lot of other rules.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why 5? Why not 3 or 7? What is the cutoff? Remember they want consistency without the need for judgement. How far apart does it take for it to not be a foul?

And I do think that, practically and logically, it should actually be like that, but where do we draw the line such that it is consistently applied?

My problem with the literal interpretation of the rule being advocated by some here is that it completely takes common sense out of the equation; like the common sense that tells not to call 3 seconds if somebody heels is on the lane line.

Plus you have things like I stated earlier with delay statics that occur where I officiate. You also have what JRut just brought up, where the first touch occurs in one official's primary, then a subsequent touch occurs in another's primary. That is going to occur quite often on plays where there is defensive pressure in the back court and the C picks up the play in the frontcourt.

The NFHS have proven enough times in the past that they do not always do a great job of having what's in ink match what is intended in reality.

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

FED makes no distinction between a "ball handler" on the perimeter and a "post player" with the ball. If the player has the ball, the rules on illegal contact (2 hands, one hand continuously, extended arm bar, hands repeatedly) apply.

Now, if there is legal contact with a post player without the ball, and the player receives a pass, I will give the defense a (fraction of a) second to remove the (now) illegal contact.

Went to a meeting this morning and conversation broke out on this topic...

B1 defending dribbler a1.. Puts one hand on him in backcourt..a1 continues up the court now in front court..b1 again one hand on him...are you calling this a foul? Or is it when done repeated and constant manner in short time frame.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

Went to a meeting this morning and conversation broke out on this topic...

B1 defending dribbler a1.. Puts one hand on him in backcourt..a1 continues up the court now in front court..b1 again one hand on him...are you calling this a foul? Or is it when done repeated and constant manner in short time frame.

We had the same discussion. We came to the conclusion, if the defender puts a hand on and removes, and maintains the 6 ft guarding space, any other touch would draw the whistle. If the 6 ft requirement is removed, then the second touch wouldn't draw a whistle.

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by OKREF

if the defender puts a hand on and removes, and maintains the 6 ft guarding space, any other touch would draw the whistle. If the 6 ft requirement is removed, then the second touch wouldn't draw a whistle.

This sounds like a good baseline to begin with. This is where our judgement should come in. I think of the "hot stove" test as meaning the two touches happen together. I was always told to see it as hand on, hand off, hand on, hand off, hand on...

Under the new rule I don't care where it happens (FC/BC) I just care that it happens. But I do think its reasonable to play on if there is a significant amount of time between the two touches. The intent of the rule is to penalize the defense for those hand checks that would "bother" the dribbler and thus disrupt their play (or freedom of movement) but were not getting called by some officials.

I plan to call this by looking at it from three perspectives: 1) If in my judgement the two touches disrupt the dribbler then I will call it no matter how far apart they are; 2) If in my judgement I think the dribbler is not affected and the two touches are faaaaaaaaar apart, I probably will not call it (but I may verbalize hands off); 3) If the two touches are close together, I will always call it wether or not the dribbler is disrupted. Of course, game management, my partner's calls, and other factors will influence how I call it on a day to day basis but for the most part I intend to call it as written using the professional judgement I am paid for.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Rich1

Under the new rule I don't care where it happens (FC/BC) I just care that it happens. But I do think its reasonable to play on if there is a significant amount of time between the two touches. The intent of the rule is to penalize the defense for those hand checks that would "bother" the dribbler and thus disrupt their play (or freedom of movement) but were not getting called by some officials.

I plan to call this by looking at it from three perspectives: 1) If in my judgement the two touches disrupt the dribbler then I will call it no matter how far apart they are; 2) If in my judgement I think the dribbler is not affected and the two touches are faaaaaaaaar apart, I probably will not call it (but I may verbalize hands off); 3) If the two touches are close together, I will always call it whether or not the dribbler is disrupted. Of course, game management, my partner's calls, and other factors will influence how I call it on a day to day basis but for the most part I intend to call it as written using the professional judgement I am paid for.

If you're planning to call the rule in this fashion - and if others do the same - what was the purpose of changing the guidelines from a PoE into a rule in the first place?

Originally Posted by OKREF

We had the same discussion. We came to the conclusion, if the defender puts a hand on and removes, and maintains the 6 ft guarding space, any other touch would draw the whistle. If the 6 ft requirement is removed, then the second touch wouldn't draw a whistle.

What does being closely guarded have to do with the rule as its written?

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

If you're planning to call the rule in this fashion - and if others do the same - what was the purpose of changing the guidelines from a PoE into a rule in the first place?

The rule was changed because some never called this foul unless there was clear displacement or advantage/disadvantage. I called this foul regularly in the past and plan to keep calling it. I don't think my explaination of how I will be calling deviates from the new rule -- and as I said in #1 & #3, if they touch with two hands I will call it.

However, I also believe that it is not reasonable nor the intent of the rule to call a foul if it has been a very long time before the player touches the dribbler a second time, which is my #2. For arguements sake, say B1 touches A1 once right after he gets the inbound pass near the endline in the back court, then A1 dribbles all the way down the floor to the other endline goes under the basket through the lane and dribbles back out to near half court before B1 touches A1 the second time. I just don't see how I can call that foul.

I am sure most of the time the touches will be fairly close together and I will definetly get it when it happens. I have already been villainized in summer & fall league by coaches, parents, & kids because they think I am calling this too tightly.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Rich1

The rule was changed because some never called this foul unless there was clear displacement or advantage/disadvantage. I called this foul regularly in the past and plan to keep calling it. I don't think my explaination of how I will be calling deviates from the new rule -- and as I said in #1 & #3, if they touch with two hands I will call it.

However, I also believe that it is not reasonable nor the intent of the rule to call a foul if it has been a very long time before the player touches the dribbler a second time, which is my #2. For arguments sake, say B1 touches A1 once right after he gets the inbound pass near the endline in the back court, then A1 dribbles all the way down the floor to the other endline goes under the basket through the lane and dribbles back out to near half court before B1 touches A1 the second time. I just don't see how I can call that foul.

I am sure most of the time the touches will be fairly close together and I will definitely get it when it happens. I have already been villainized in summer & fall league by coaches, parents, & kids because they think I am calling this too tightly.

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.

[johnny d]

[QUOTE=

B1 defending dribbler a1.. Puts one hand on him in backcourt..a1 continues up the court now in front court..b1 again one hand on him...are you calling this a foul?[/QUOTE]



Not a chance I am calling a foul on this play, nor did I see it called that way in any college game I worked or watched last season. Two touches occurring 40-80 feet apart, I hope you spent the off season fine tuning your game management skills.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Not a chance I am calling a foul on this play, nor did I see it called that way in any college game I worked or watched last season. Two touches occurring 40-80 feet apart, I hope you spent the off season fine tuning your game management skills.

You may not have seen it but I do know in NCAAW we've been told the foul is supposed to be called on the second touch regardless of whether it happens two feet after the first or 80 feet after the first. The rule states in NFHS and NCAA NCAAW that it's a foul when a defender contacts the ball handler/dribbler more than once with the same hand or with alternating hands. There are no time or distance limits between touches written into the rule which means no limits exist.

I had at least one instance last season when B1 contacted A1 as A1 was nearing the division line then B1 contacted A1 again about 5 or 6 seconds later and I called the foul. B's head coach complained but after I made the call I told her the first contact was in the backcourt. She didn't say another word and my supervisor never brought it up (and believe me, he would have brought it up).

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

The rule states in NFHS and NCAA that it's a foul when a defender contacts the ball handler/dribbler more than once with the same hand or with alternating hands. There are no time or distance limits between touches written into the rule which means no limits exist.

I have not read the new NFHS version of the rule yet. I was told it was the same as the NCAA-M, but that could be erroneous information. I have no idea what the NCAA-W rule states. However, the NCAA-M rule states it is illegal to continually jab an opponent by extending an arm and placing a hand or forearm on the opponent. As you can see below (taken directly from dictionary for definition of continually), at least in the NCAA-M version of the rule, time and distance are part of the rule as defined.


1.

very often; at regular or frequent intervals; habitually.


2.

without cessation or intermission; unceasingly; always.