Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[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