Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

Extended arm arm bar = foul.

Is that one an arm bar with both arms?

[Rich]

We had someone pretty close to all this at our association meeting last night.

There is no time or distance factor for the 2 touches. As long as the ball handler remains the ball handler and the defender is the same defender, one touch can be in the backcourt and one in the frontcourt and closely guarded is irrelevant -- it's a foul.

I'm not surprised that people are already looking for reasons to not call fouls -- it's why we have these automatics now in the first place, really.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

We had someone pretty close to all this at our association meeting last night.

There is no time or distance factor for the 2 touches. As long as the ball handler remains the ball handler and the defender is the same defender, one touch can be in the backcourt and one in the frontcourt and closely guarded is irrelevant -- it's a foul.

I'm not surprised that people are already looking for reasons to not call fouls -- it's why we have these automatics now in the first place, really.

How did your group decide how the T is to know the C had the first touch already when the play crosses primaries?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Is that one an arm bar with both arms?

No, that would be a (2 x arm) bar.

[JRutledge]

Yeah, but if there is a clear separation between touches, then I think that is not the actual intent of the rule. The rule is to stop constant using of hands on a ball handler. 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. I am still using the guide of RSBQ to help me decide when these are fouls anyway. And I call as many of these fouls as anyone. I am just still going to use common sense and there still is the rule for incidental contact. If someone from my state wants to suggest otherwise, then I will possibly change that opinion. But as of last year, we were told about RSBQ extensively and these rules were our state's POE on the topic.

Peace

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

Just to set the record straight...

I agree that all of the above are fouls that should be called and will be called when I'm on the floor. And, like many of you, I did not need to go from a POE to a rule for me to blow my whistle. I applied "good" judgement to do my job. But I still believe there will be situations that occur when a true professional may use "good" judgement and decide to not blow the whistle. I'm not advocating that we go looking for it, just allowing that maybe once a season it might happen and we should be open to it.

As for the second statement, those of us who have the judgement to know when to blow the whistle and when not to are also committed to do our jobs. The problem for all of us has been and always will be those who won't make the effort to get better or who apply their own set of rules/mechanics to the game, not those who on a few rare occassions apply judgement to rare situations . Unfortunately, the people this rule change was aimed at will still refuse to call these fouls because they either don't know better (incompetence, poor training) or they think they know better than the rest of us.

Some of us seem to be getting hung up on judgement. The job of a referree is all about judgement -- its the very nature of what we are supposed to do. All refs use judgement but what seperates good refs from bad refs is that we use "good" judgement.