Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And I must be doing something right, I advanced in the playoffs and one step from the highest level in my state (and I am a state clinician). So I must have no idea what I am talking about.

But hey, you know.

Peace

If that is the measuring stick you want to go by let me know when you've caught up with me and we'll talk again.

[BillyMac]

We had our local board's annual interpretation (new rules) meeting a few nights ago. We were shown several video sequences regarding the new freedom of movement rule. They were probably IAABO produced videos. In a few sequences the defender appeared to be making "normal" hand, and arm, movements as he tried to keep up, and change directions, with the ball handler, trying to maintain his balance without falling down (i.e., when we run, we move our arms), and there were a few, what appeared to be, accidental touches (certainly not deliberate, and not seeming to effect the ball handler's balance, rhythm, speed, quickness, etc.). In all cases we were told to call these fouls. It appears that incidental contact, and advantage/disadvantage, are no longer part of the equation in regard to defending the ball handler.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OKREF

The post player becomes a ball handler as soon as they possess the ball.

Correct in FED, not correct in NCAAW, which is why I said "that latter distinction is not relevant in FED"

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

advantage/disadvantage, are no longer part of the equation in regard to defending the ball handler.

That's overstating it.

ad/dis is not part of the equation in regard to the "four absolutes." There's lots of "defending the ball handler" that does not involve the "four absolutes" and thus still has ad/dis.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's overstating it.

ad/dis is not part of the equation in regard to the "four absolutes." There's lots of "defending the ball handler" that does not involve the "four absolutes" and thus still has ad/dis.

Isn't that point whole topic of this discussion...the four absolutes? And some that are saying they're still using ad/dis or RSBQ and will not call them as absolutes.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Correct in FED, not correct in NCAAW, which is why I said "that latter distinction is not relevant in FED"

Wasn't trying to argue, my bad.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Thank you gentlemen, particularly bob since he has clarified that most of Illinois too is on the same page and that there are only a few that will do their own thing.

I am not sure this statement is entirely true. In Illinois, we starting using these four absolutes last year, just like the NCAA. However, In the meetings I attended, including one conducted by the head clinician for the IHSA, we were told to call these fouls like the NCAA-M. I did not realize until this thread that there was a difference in the wording between NCAA-M and NCAA-W, and what the NFHS has put into effect this season. Remember, as I pointed out to JetMet earlier, the NCAA-M has the modifier, continually, in its wording, which is not present in the NCAA-W or the new NFHS rule. Therefore, the touches separated by time/distance would not necessarily be automatics using the NCAA-M version of the rule. Therefore, for last season at least, I would say JRut was right in his interpretation of the rule. Perhaps in Bob's area of IL, they were told different. My association will not have its meeting with the head clinician until Oct. 30th. It will be interesting to see what he says now that the NFHS wording is published and matches the NCAA-W. Until then, I will withhold judgment on whether Bob or JRut has presented how the IHSA wants this rule enforced.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Thank you gentlemen, particularly bob since he has clarified that most of Illinois too is on the same page and that there are only a few that will do their own thing.

First of all, Illinois has not come out with any different statement, language or interpretation about how the game is to be called this year as opposed to last year. I will say this one more time, this was already a POE specifically in Illinois (not with the NF) where they wanted us to mirror and use RSBQ and the now new NF rules language. We have not had our Video Rules Meeting published yet, which will be posted on the 28th of this month. We have not been told as clinicians anything different (and we were given information this summer to teach). Bob does not speak for what Illinois does or does not do and neither do I. I just have the ear of those based on my position and try to make sure I am sharing the same message. And there are many others that spoke openly as Rules Interpreters (who are also clinicians in every case, but are allowed to be on the video or run a meeting in certain cases) stated the same thing. And they did so with the blessing of the IHSA. At this point the information that has been given or used up until this date of October 18th, nothing has changed.

Now if you would like, I was considering going to a meeting where the Boy's basketball administrator will be speaking this weekend and I can ask him has our interpretation changed. I know he will give me an answer as he has in the past and knows who I am from my other work with the IHSA. But at this point, I really do not care what NCAA says about this issue and I work NCAA Men's games. All I know is that what was in the actual literature by the IHSA was not different than Men's basketball. And as Johnny stated, I was unaware there was any difference in Men's and Women's interpretation until I read and had conversations with a few Women's officials in our state try to make distinctions with what takes place in the post or what takes place after an initial touch.

All I know, is this conversation is as usual, entertaining, but means nothing to what we do here. If the IHSA wants this called, they will state that is the case. If that is not the case, they will not mention it at all. I do not anticipate any changes based on recent conversations. But I will report it if it has. But I doubt they are going to throw away everything they talked about last year and yes, Rhythm, Speed, Balance and Quickness were specifically referenced in the IHSA interpretation. And I had many games on video and streaming live games and if the IHSA did not like how I called the game, they could have made that clear with my assignments or sent me some information about my interpretation. Well I have one very important measure for how I called the game must be viewed by the powers that be.

Peace

[JRutledge]

I also went back and looked at the Webinar from the IHSA that addressed basketball concerns they wanted addressed.

There is a PowerPoint slide in the presentation from the NF and Referee Magazine and has "Point of Emphasis" as apart of the slide and uses this sentence with three examples of Illegal Contact. This line is used below.

"Contact that impedes rhythm, speed, balance and quickness on the offense or defensive player should be called."

Here is the presentation. Look at pages 33 and 34.

NF Basketball PowerPoint 2013-2014

I love people from Missouri.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I also went back and looked at the Webinar from the IHSA that addressed basketball concerns they wanted addressed.

There is a PowerPoint slide in the presentation from the NF and Referee Magazine and has "Point of Emphasis" as apart of the slide and uses this sentence with three examples of Illegal Contact (Handchecking, Displacement and Player Control, three illustrations) and it says:

"Contact that impedes rhythm, speed, balance and quickness on the offense or defensive player should be called."

Doesn't everyone know that this contact should be called? Isn't it possible that the point of this sentence was to emphasize that the new rule was not now the only contact that should be called?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I also went back and looked at the Webinar from the IHSA that addressed basketball concerns they wanted addressed.

There is a PowerPoint slide in the presentation from the NF and Referee Magazine and has "Point of Emphasis" as apart of the slide and uses this sentence with three examples of Illegal Contact (Handchecking, Displacement and Player Control, three illustrations) and it says:



Here is the presentation.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f3pfembej4...-2014.ppt?dl=0

Peace

I don't disagree with that. That is always true. But that isn't all the fouls we are to call.

Or, from a different angle...they're telling us that they have decided that two hands on, one hand continuously on, etc. always affect RSBQ whether you can tell it or not.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Doesn't everyone know that this contact should be called? Isn't it possible that the point of this sentence was to emphasize that the new rule was not now the only contact that should be called?

I do not know what everyone knows. I just know that what I stated was obviously more than a personal interpretation.

Booom!!!!

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not know what everyone knows. I just know that what I stated was obviously more than a personal interpretation.

Booom!!!!

Peace

I don't think anyone is saying not to call contact that affects RSBQ. The point is that this thread has nothing to do with RSBQ unless one is saying that the new rule should be ignored and only contact which affect RSBQ should be called. Is that what your presentation said?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I don't think anyone is saying not to call contact that affects RSBQ. The point is that this thread has nothing to do with RSBQ unless one is saying that the new rule should be ignored and only contact which affect RSBQ should be called. Is that what your presentation said?

Well if you use previous literature from where this came from, RSBQ was used as the guideline for these to be called. The NCAA Men's side and John Adams specifically has been talking about this for years. I did not say ignore the rules, I said these are to be used as a guideline for when the rules have been violated. Unless something drastically changed in a year, it appears that is what the NF is saying too.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well if you use previous literature from where this came from, RSBQ was used as the guideline for these to be called. The NCAA Men's side and John Adams specifically has been talking about this for years. I did not say ignore the rules, I said these are to be used as a guideline for when the rules have been violated. Unless something drastically changed in a year, it appears that is what the NF is saying too.

Peace

RSBQ is and always has been a guideline, even though that acronym does not appear in the books anywhere. (does it?) "....contact which hinders an opponent from performing normal maneuvers....." conveys pretty much the same message, does it not?

But something has drastically changed. Namely the addition of 10-6-12 which is obviously intended to go above and beyond that which was stated above.