Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 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.

The rule does not say anything about a second touch with an extended period of distance and lapse as a foul. The casebook has two plays with the new rules being considered and no such interpretation. Now what do we do when there is no clear interpretation coming from the National Federation? You go to your state organization and ask them (that is what the NF says) and in my state there is no such interpretation of the rule. Sorry, but anyone trying to suggest this is a foul is taking it from another level, like Women's NCAA officials or trying to create an interpretation based off of what they "think" it should be. And unless the NF comes up with some kind of language to suggest that should be called, you are speculating their intent. All I know, is in the NF literature, there is no such interpretation. And they could clear this up by putting something in their Casebook and they did not do that in this case.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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:

That is great, but I see nothing in that rule alone that says the second touch at a different part of the court (Significant or delayed time and distance contact) that this is a foul under NCAAW Rules. Now I am sure there was an interpretation from the NCAAW Committee or your people and that is fine, but not such comment was made on the Men's side. All videos I have seen clearly talks about these situations that are basically one after the other or immediate.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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.

Jet, this is not my first rodeo. I have done basketball at different levels and other sports at different levels for years. NCAA often has an interpretation that does not apply to the NF level. Just because a rule has a similar language, does not mean the powers that be want the same application in every case. And now with the NCAA splitting up rules by gender, it is clear that even at that level there is not the same take of the rules even when the rules are the same. I have never seen an NCAAM's video suggesting the play we are discussing here is a foul. That was the case when the rulebooks were not separated and now you want to try to convince us that the NF who is a completely separate body all together wants only the NCAAW's interpretation? OK, go with that one. That is not very logical if you ask me. And certainly not very logical if you consider the many other differences we point out on this site between the two NCAA committees alone. Heck the NF did not even take on the NCAA language of either rule set. Now you want me to assume that NCAAW is so special that the NF only decided to use their rules? Sorry, but if they cannot do that in football and baseball, why would I believe the NF would do that in basketball?

Peace

[rockyroad]

Sooooo...just to make sure I understand this all correctly:

The NF rule says it is a foul if the defender contacts the ball handler more than once with the same hand or alternating hands.

Mr. Rutledge says he won't call that if there is some undetermined amount of time between the first touch and the second touch.

So my question is: What is that undetermined amount of time? Are you going to count the number of steps the ballhandler takes between defensive touches? 4 or fewer steps will result in a foul call, while 5 or more will result in no foul being called? Or will it be a certain number of seconds off the clock between touches?