Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[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)

[JRutledge]

To whom it may concern.

I went to a meeting tonight where the Boys Basketball Administrator was speaking. After his comments to the group, I asked him directly after the meeting about this interpretation that it appears NCAA Women's officials are stuck on. Well in Illinois, this one touch at one part of the court and another touch several feet later up the court was not considered a foul unless RSBQ was affected. He even made it clear the first touch could be a foul if RSBQ was affected, but it would not be an "automatic" if the second touch happen at a different time. And this is a person that says that we should call the game by the rules and not pick and choose. So it appears at least in Illinois, the NCAA Women's interpretation does not apply.

He even said that him and the other administrator would have to discuss the issue as I made him aware that there are NCAA Women's officials that are trying to apply interpretations to the NF rules, but it appears he does not support that position as we have talked about here.

Peace

[JetMetFan]

JRut, it's not a matter of me or any other NCAAW's official "trying to apply interpretations to the NF rules." The language in the NFHS rule as it relates to the "absolutes" is the same as NCAAW's. Like it or not, any state that determines a second touch on the BH/dribbler isn't a foul won't be following the NFHS rule set.

In NCAAW the first touch can also be a foul if RSBQ is affected. I called that more than a few times in the past year in my college and GV games. But if there's a second touch it's a foul, regardless of RSBQ. Earlier you posted NCAAM 10-1-4. Here's NCAAW 10-1-4:

Art. 4. It is a foul when a defender contacts the ball handler/dribbler:
a. Anytime with two hands.
b. By placing a hand (front or back of the hand) on the ball handler/dribbler and keeping it on the ball handler/dribbler.
c. More than once with the same hand or with alternating hands; or
d. With an arm bar.

They're ordered differently from the NFHS rule but the criteria are the same. That's why those of us who work NCAAW have been more than a little vocal.