Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[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.