Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[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.

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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.

I don't look at it as going back to using judgement because I haven't stopped using judgement. Every rule, no matter how black & white it seems, will have nuances that require officials to use good judgement to enforce rules. The best, most professional refs use their experience, knowledge, and skill to judge when and how to apply the rules in all situations. Hopefully, the large majority in our profession are working hard everyday to gain experience, learn, and improve as refs. But refs who blow a whistle just because a rule says it can be blown (not based on judgement) are no better than refs who don't make calls because they lack the understanding or desire to apply the rules correctly. Both are signs of incompetence or inexperience.

In another thread today about calling a double dribble there are some very experienced refs saying they would leave it alone if they were far from the play which shows that even though it is a clearly written rule good refs use judgement when making calls. What about MS girls games or that book that isn't quite ready 10 minutes prior to game time or the countless other examples of times in the past when good refs have considered the circumstances surrounding the event to make a judgement about how to enforce rules.

Those of us who, using our good judgement, were already calling these fouls will still call them. Some refs will start calling it now that it has been emphasized to the extreme and there will be some who still just don't get it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich1

I don't look at it as going back to using judgement because I haven't stopped using judgement. Every rule, no matter how black & white it seems, will have nuances that require officials to use good judgement to enforce rules. The best, most professional refs use their experience, knowledge, and skill to judge when and how to apply the rules in all situations. Hopefully, the large majority in our profession are working hard everyday to gain experience, learn, and improve as refs. But refs who blow a whistle just because a rule says it can be blown (not based on judgement) are no better than refs who don't make calls because they lack the understanding or desire to apply the rules correctly. Both are signs of incompetence or inexperience.

In another thread today about calling a double dribble there are some very experienced refs saying they would leave it alone if they were far from the play which shows that even though it is a clearly written rule good refs use judgement when making calls. What about MS girls games or that book that isn't quite ready 10 minutes prior to game time or the countless other examples of times in the past when good refs have considered the circumstances surrounding the event to make a judgement about how to enforce rules.

Those of us who, using our good judgement, were already calling these fouls will still call them. Some refs will start calling it now that it has been emphasized to the extreme and there will be some who still just don't get it.

The problem with that is that the NFHS has, for years, basically been telling us that, with respect to fouls on the ball handler, our judgement sucks. They tried saying it nicely with POEs and such.

So many went along thinking their judgement was fine and they must be talking to someone else that they have resorted to making it absolutes...pretty much taking judgement out of it. Why? Because those that thought their judgment was fine will still think so and will not get that the message is for them.


As for the double dribble situation, that isn't about judgement but an entirely different topic.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Rich1

I don't look at it as going back to using judgement because I haven't stopped using judgement. Every rule, no matter how black & white it seems, will have nuances that require officials to use good judgement to enforce rules. The best, most professional refs use their experience, knowledge, and skill to judge when and how to apply the rules in all situations. Hopefully, the large majority in our profession are working hard everyday to gain experience, learn, and improve as refs. But refs who blow a whistle just because a rule says it can be blown (not based on judgement) are no better than refs who don't make calls because they lack the understanding or desire to apply the rules correctly. Both are signs of incompetence or inexperience.

In another thread today about calling a double dribble there are some very experienced refs saying they would leave it alone if they were far from the play which shows that even though it is a clearly written rule good refs use judgement when making calls. What about MS girls games or that book that isn't quite ready 10 minutes prior to game time or the countless other examples of times in the past when good refs have considered the circumstances surrounding the event to make a judgement about how to enforce rules.

Those of us who, using our good judgement, were already calling these fouls will still call them. Some refs will start calling it now that it has been emphasized to the extreme and there will be some who still just don't get it.

2 hands = foul.

Extended touch = foul.

Repeated touch = foul.

Extended arm arm bar = foul.

Those who try to apply personal judgment to this rather than blowing the whistle and calling the damned foul are going to make life hard for those of us who have committed to do our jobs.