Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by 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

Jeff, You may not realize it but they're talking to you.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Jeff, You may not realized it but they're talking to you.

Well they are not talking to me, because our state and state administrator had already spoken about this a year ago with us. It was a statewide POE with the very same rules applied last year. There was even a Webinar to clarify the position from the Administrators in the sport. And we were calling more things than the NF suggested a year ago because that is stand or interpretation our state said how these situations should be called. And yes they used RSBQ (not my personal position) to describe how fouls should be called, along with the all other absolutes.

I know it is hard, but states have the right to make their position known. I have not heard anyone suggest that a touch in one area of the court means another touch in a completely different area of the court is a foul. I will wait for the video, but this discussion with all due respect is irrelevant to me as to what I will be calling.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well they are not talking to me, because our state and state administrator had already spoken about this a year ago with us. It was a statewide POE with the very same rules applied last year. There was even a Webinar to clarify the position from the Administrators in the sport. And we were calling more things than the NF suggested a year ago because that is stand or interpretation our state said how these situations should be called. And yes they used RSBQ (not my personal position) to describe how fouls should be called, along with the all other absolutes.

I know it is hard, but states have the right to make their position known. I have not heard anyone suggest that a touch in one area of the court means another touch in a completely different area of the court is a foul. I will wait for the video, but this discussion with all due respect is irrelevant to me as to what I will be calling.

Peace

We know. You'll do your own thing regardless of what the rules say. Not the first time.

BTW, I'm not talking about the well separated 1st and 2nd touch, just the use of RSBQ which the NFHS has basically said is not being applied correctly...that the player is being affected even though people are incorrectly justifying no calls under the guise of RSBQ. They're saying their RSBQ is being affected and people still are not calling it.

[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.