Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Rationale given by NFHS was that if they issued this as an actual rule, rather than merely a POE, it would actually be called by us. Whether or not a dribbler is able to "play through it" is apparently no longer a factor. They want it cleaned up out top. They want these four things called. "Automatics." Previous year's POE's and emphasis on RSBQ had a beneficial effect on many of us the past several years and that seemed to have a good effect on the perimeter. At least for many.
As mentioned previously, this exact phraseology was adopted as a POE for NCAA-W several years ago. Can any women's officials testify as to how those four "automatics" are doing now? Did they make it into the book as actual rules? Are your officials still calling it according to these four criteria? Any problems? Is it working for NCAA-W?

I was at camp this summer, and we were told it was only supposed to apply outside the lane area. This case play clearly makes no distinction.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I was at camp this summer, and we were told it was only supposed to apply outside the lane area. This case play clearly makes no distinction.

OKREF, was it a HS camp? An NCAAM camp? AN NCAAW camp?

The camps I attended we applied the NCAAW interpretation because they were NCAAW camps and we may have figured - incorrectly as it turns out - NFHS would follow our code since it follows our code in many other areas (airborne shooter, etc.). Truth be told, if we wanted the HS kids to get used to what they'll see starting next month we should have been using the NCAAM code.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I agree with you on the difficulty with "arm bar". Part of if, I think, is that (a) the term isn't defined and (b) a "collapsed arm bar" is not an automatic. at what point does it go from "collapse" to "extended"?

Bob, it's defined in Appendix III-3 in Section A under Ball Handler or Dribbler (An arm-bar is contact with the forearm that is away from the body).

During the camps I attended where Jon Levinson was an observer or clinician it was mentioned that "collapsed arm bar" or "extended arm bar" may not be needed in the rule book since by definition it's a forearm away from the body. He said he'll take a look at it for the rule book next year.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I was at camp this summer, and we were told it was only supposed to apply outside the lane area. This case play clearly makes no distinction.

Sounds like you have a few people still trying to hang on to the old rules.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

OKREF, was it a HS camp? An NCAAM camp? AN NCAAW camp?

The camps I attended we applied the NCAAW interpretation because they were NCAAW camps and we may have figured - incorrectly as it turns out - NFHS would follow our code since it follows our code in many other areas (airborne shooter, etc.). Truth be told, if we wanted the HS kids to get used to what they'll see starting next month we should have been using the NCAAM code.




Bob, it's defined in Appendix III-3 in Section A under Ball Handler or Dribbler (An arm-bar is contact with the forearm that is away from the body).

During the camps I attended where Jon Levinson was an observer or clinician it was mentioned that "collapsed arm bar" or "extended arm bar" may not be needed in the rule book since by definition it's a forearm away from the body. He said he'll take a look at it for the rule book next year.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sounds like you have a few people still trying to hang on to the old rules.

It was a HS camp. Our director of officials told us he contacted the NFHS during the camp weekend and told us the NFHS said it was to apply outside of the lane area. I don't have this in an email or bullet point of any kind. Just going by what the director said the NFHS told him.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by OKREF

It was a HS camp. Our director of officials told us he contacted the NFHS during the camp weekend and told us the NFHS said it was to apply outside of the lane area. I don't have this in an email or bullet point of any kind. Just going by what the director said the NFHS told him.

The problem with NFHS saying something like this is there is no such thing as the "lane area" in the HS code. It's defined under both NCAA codes (the three-second lane and approximately three feet just outside the lane on all sides). If this is what NFHS really wanted that's fine but the rule needed to be modified to reflect it.

[JRutledge]

I am not sure I agree that women's basketball officials were more consistent. The basketball I saw there were a lot of fouls. I know on the Men's side there were even more fouls than ever for most of the time. Games almost never fit in that 2 hour window that TV likes to use with TV Guides because of the amount of fouls being called.

And NCAAM does not care whether you have the ball in the post or on the perimeter, it is a foul if you violate the "absolutes." That is the way I saw it called all year in games I worked or games I watched.

On the HS side, we were told not call those fouls no matter where they take place. I do not have a lot of confidence in anything the NF says anyway as it appears they often say different things based on who is talking or sharing information.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not have a lot of confidence in anything the NF says anyway as it appears they often say different things based on who is talking or sharing information.

And things change, or get deemphasized, from year to year. Stupid NFHS.

[Kansas Ref]

These situations call for the game Official to apply shrewd judgement. Although hand checking violations are more "visible" when occurring on the perimeter than in the post, these violations do allow the Defender to "gain an advantage". Even if an offensive post player is slashing across the lane moving towards the ball and the defender has slightly impeded his cut.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not sure I agree that women's basketball officials were more consistent. The basketball I saw there were a lot of fouls. I know on the Men's side there were even more fouls than ever for most of the time. Games almost never fit in that 2 hour window that TV likes to use with TV Guides because of the amount of fouls being called.

And NCAAM does not care whether you have the ball in the post or on the perimeter, it is a foul if you violate the "absolutes." That is the way I saw it called all year in games I worked or games I watched.

On the HS side, we were told not call those fouls no matter where they take place. I do not have a lot of confidence in anything the NF says anyway as it appears they often say different things based on who is talking or sharing information.

Peace

Believe me, Jeff, I didn't mean to say my side was more consistent. That's why I said "appeared." My side may have harped on it more in the preseason. Who knows? I do know Freddy isn't the first person I've heard say the guidelines were an NCAAW thing last season.

I'm with you on the NF side of things (we're agreeing again...I'm waiting for the lightning). I can already see the mess beginning since the powers that be put out the rule but didn't make a blanket statement as to how it should be called. I'm sure you saw on the FB site that some say their boards want the rule called the way NCAAM has it while others want the NCAAW interpretation. So much for NF helping IAABO achieve its goal of "one rule, one interpretation."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Believe me, Jeff, I didn't mean to say my side was more consistent. That's why I said "appeared." My side may have harped on it more in the preseason. Who knows? I do know Freddy isn't the first person I've heard say the guidelines were an NCAAW thing last season.

I do not watch a lot women's college basketball until basically the Final Four and I openly admit that fact. All I know is that there were a lot of fouls in the Men's game and there was no distinction between when these things were to be called as it relates to the post or the perimeter. It did not need to be talked about because no one said what was done in one part of the court should be called any differently. Actually it was emphasized that the actions with all the absolutes that were put into the rules were the same. And that is what was told to us in meetings and from D1 officials at the conference staff meetings I work. That is why I do not know why who is a post player or what the definition of one even matters in this discussion. If the women's side was having that conversation, that is news to me as I do not work that side.

Peace