Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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.

My mistake, Johnny (and everyone else). Welpe's post shows the language in the NFHS rule. It's essentially taken from NCAAW. The NCAAM element of the rule - if you will - is there's no distinction made for players in/near the lane since NFHS doesn't define the lane area.

I've corrected the original post where you took my quote.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

My mistake, Johnny (and everyone else). Welpe's post shows the language in the NFHS rule. It's essentially taken from NCAAW. The NCAAM element of the rule - if you will - is there's no distinction made for players in/near the lane since NFHS doesn't define the lane area.

I've corrected the original post where you took my quote.

The rule does not come from either side of the NCAA, these were NCAA rules not a rule specific to gender. These were guidelines first, then put into actual rules, but were followed either way for years. NCAA Men's side wanted the contact to stop and made that clear it did not matter where it took place on the court. That is what the videos indicated and the comments from Adams indicated.

Peace

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

My mistake, Johnny (and everyone else). Welpe's post shows the language in the NFHS rule. It's essentially taken from NCAAW. The NCAAM element of the rule - if you will - is there's no distinction made for players in/near the lane since NFHS doesn't define the lane area.

I've corrected the original post where you took my quote.

JetMet, not a problem. As I said, I hadn't read the NFHS rule yet, and was told it was the same as the NCAA-M, which is obviously not the case. Since this became a rule after they started doing separate books for men and women, I did not know what was in the women's rule. I was just pointing out that the NCAA-M rule does imply that time between touches should be considered.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by johnny d

JetMet, not a problem. As I said, I hadn't read the NFHS rule yet, and was told it was the same as the NCAA-M, which is obviously not the case. Since this became a rule after they started doing separate books for men and women, I did not know what was in the women's rule. I was just pointing out that the NCAA-M rule does imply that time between touches should be considered.

The NFHS rule doesn't either. But say we're in the front court, closely guarded situation and the defender puts a hand on the ball handler. Now say 4 seconds has elapsed and the closely guarded situation has gone away. Now another 4 seconds goes by and the same defender puts his hand on the same ball handler. Are you going to call a foul?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OKREF

The NFHS rule doesn't either. But say we're in the front court, closely guarded situation and the defender puts a hand on the ball handler. Now say 4 seconds has elapsed and the closely guarded situation has gone away. Now another 4 seconds goes by and the same defender puts his hand on the same ball handler. Are you going to call a foul?

I think that, in order to be applied consistently, a separation of time will have to erase the fact that there was a touch.

Coverage of a play currently changes through the course of action based on primaries. If we are to consider a prior touch from a long time before, there would have to be some way for each official to know what the other officials already saw OR an official would stay on a matchup anywhere on the court if player control had begun in their primary. Neither are practical or even likely to be consistent.

It does't say so in the rule, but I'd suggest that the only way this can be consistently applied is for a prior touch to be ignored if there is enough space between the players such that it is not the same match-up situation....i.e. no closely guarded count.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think that, in order to be applied consistently, a separation of time will have to erase the fact that there was a touch.

Coverage of a play currently changes through the course of action based on primaries. If we are to apply consider a prior touch from a long time before, there would have to be some way for each official to know what the other officials already saw OR an official would stay on a matchup anywhere on the court if player control had begun in their primary. Neither are practical or even likely to be consistent.

It does't say so in the rule, but I'd suggest that the only way this can be consistently applied is for a prior touch to be ignored if there is enough space between the players such that it is not the same match situation....i.e. no closely guarded count.

Cameron brings up a good point here. Depending upon where the first touch occurred, there is a good possibility I wont even be aware of it. Further, most times, I am not staying with a play once it leaves my primary, so there is a good chance I wouldn't see the second touch.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by OKREF

The NFHS rule doesn't either. But say we're in the front court, closely guarded situation and the defender puts a hand on the ball handler. Now say 4 seconds has elapsed and the closely guarded situation has gone away. Now another 4 seconds goes by and the same defender puts his hand on the same ball handler. Are you going to call a foul?

To give a definitive answer, I would have to see a specific play. I know part of the reason for going to these automatics is to make these calls more consistent and eliminate differences in judgment, but with an 8 second separation between touches, I am still treating this as a judgment call. I would lean towards no, I am not calling a foul in the situation described. Establish/maintaining closely guarded position is not written into the rule, but I am most likely treating this as two separate plays once the closely guarded situation is lost. I think the NFHS and NCAA-W are making a mistake by not including the qualifier, continually, found in the NCAA-M wording.

Luckily for me, the few HS games I officiate each season are played in an area where the vast majority of coaches, players, officials, and assignors would view two touches separated by a significant amount of time, the same way I do, as two separate plays. Therefore, I do not expect to have any problems using more of an NCAA-M philosophy in this particular instance.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by OKREF

The NFHS rule doesn't either. But say we're in the front court, closely guarded situation and the defender puts a hand on the ball handler. Now say 4 seconds has elapsed and the closely guarded situation has gone away. Now another 4 seconds goes by and the same defender puts his hand on the same ball handler. Are you going to call a foul?

Yes, but I understand where Cameron and Johnny d are coming from in relation to the play. Since I worked under the NCAAW rule in 90% of my games last season I got into the habit of saying "one" to myself when the first touch was made so the second wasn't a surprise. I'll say I was more likely to see the second - even if there was a decent amount of time between touches - during a GV game because those were 2-person and the PCA is larger. I picked up a couple in NCAAW games but those players generally passed the ball more often.