Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[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?

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

RSBQ is a philosophy on how to consistently apply the written rules. I would never suggest that RSBQ is not about what is already written in the current rules. And it also considers 4-27 so that you just do not call a foul because there is contact.

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

Well this is NCAA 10-1-4:

The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a player with the ball:

a. Keeping a hand or forearm on an opponent;
b. Putting two hands on an opponent
c. Continually jabbing an opponent by extending an arm(s) and placing a hand or forearm on an opponent;
d. Using an arm bar to impede the progress of a dribbler.

While NF 10-6-12 says:

The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a ball handler/dribbler:

a. Placing two hands on a dribbler
b. Placing an extended arm bar on a player.
c. Placing and keeping a hand on a dribbler
d. Contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands.

These are basically the same thing or language.

The NCAA does a better job through Rule 10-1 to describe when is or isn't a foul throughout the rest of the section.

Peace

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

2013-14 NFHS Basketball Rules p.68 POE 3. Guidelines to Enforce Illegal Contact. When contact occurs that affects the rhythm, speed, quickness and balance of the player, illegal contact must be called. (italic added)

[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 Camron Rust

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.

Let me try this again. I never said that two hands on a ball handler was not a foul. Actually extended arms in my opinion are fouls pretty much every time when both hands are on the ball handler. I know in Illinois, it was talked about in situations where hands might touch a ball handler, but are not extended or are retreating as not fitting in these guidelines which are now rules.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Let me try this again. I never said that two hands on a ball handler was not a foul. Actually extended arms in my opinion are fouls pretty much every time when both hands are on the ball handler. I know in Illinois, it was talked about in situations where hands might touch a ball handler, but are not extended or are retreating as not fitting in these guidelines which are now rules.

Peace

.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...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..... I am just still going to use common sense and there still is the rule for incidental contact. ....But as of last year, we were told about RSBQ extensively and these rules were our state's POE on the topic.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Where the original question about the second touch via: The Rookie

Interesting, but "second touch" reference is not "two hands" in my opinion. I thought we were originally talking about a touch at one point and several feet later, we have another touch. Maybe I missed part of this debate, but that is not the same thing IMO.

Peace

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Agree with this 100%. Instead of our judgement deciding if the 4 absolutes affected RSBQ, the NFHS has decided that the 4 absolutes affect RSBQ no matter what.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by OKREF

the NFHS has decided that the 4 absolutes affect RSBQ no matter what.

If this is the reasoning behind the wording concerning the two touches part of the rule, than they have based this part of the rule on something that is unequivocally false.

As is obvious from my earlier posts, I think the wording of the NCAA-M rule is much better on this particular point. That being said, I have no problem calling things I don't necessarily agree with. Luckily for me, JRut, and quite possibly BNR, our states and/or assignment chairs do not seem to want the rule called as written. Since the NFHS has nothing to do with any assignments I receive, and my main HS assignor is the head clinician for my state as well as one of my college assignors, I will continue to enforce the way I have the last few seasons using NCAA-M interpretation.