Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Let's see...Posts #26, 46, 49, and 83.

I am sure you are capable of going back and looking at them. After all, you are a clinician in your state.

Yes I did say I was not calling what was described because it did not fit the rule and RSBQ would be a factor. And yes, I am a State Clinician that calls a lot of handchecking type fouls. If you want to know, look on line. Just about all my playoff games last year were on video. You can look at those calls and decide for yourself.

Oh, High School Cube and the IHSA Network for my Super-Sectional. All still there. If you want the specific links, I can help you there too.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

And I don't HAVE to ask all these questions. I already understand how they want this called. I just want you to pin down your definition of when the defender touching the ballhandler a second time with the same or alternating hands IS and IS NOT a foul.

Pretty simple question...let's see if you can actually answer it.

I only asked questions to prove point. And it is clear that those here that did any research had the information. Remember, I was not alone in my stance. And it was clear that once again, Women's officials wanted to make their philosophies apply to the NF when the rules and philosophies are often different from each other. As I said, this was a POE in our state last year before a rule. What they wanted was beat into our head extensively before the season. And no where did a foul apply in the type of play that was being discussed. I just did.

Peace

[Raymond]

I interpret 10-6-12d as the repeated hot stove touch, not touching A1 at the 28' line in the backcourt, then again 40' up the court. Can somebody point me to where the NFHS has said they wanted called this way (2 separate touches 40' apart)? If I missed it somewhere in this thread I apologize.

[APG]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I interpret 10-6-12d as the repeated hot stove touch, not touching A1 at the 28' line in the backcourt, then again 40' up the court. Can somebody point me to where the NFHS has said they wanted called this way (2 separate touches 40' apart)? If I missed it somewhere in this thread I apologize.

Every video example I've seen regarding repeated touching has been just as you've described.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by APG

Every video example I've seen regarding repeated touching has been just as you've described.

I think that may make the most sense but it isn't how the rule is currently written.

Basically, it seems they're saying they'll give a defender a mulligan for 1 touch and 1 touch only as long as it doesn't affect RSBQ but are not going to give repeated exceptions. I see it more that they simply want the hands completely off but are going to be merciful once.

[Raymond]

Well, since several folks are telling JRut he is crazy I thought there was some sort of definitive statement from the NFHS. I've always interpreted a repeated touch as the "hot stove". This 30/40/50' thing is something I never once envisioned as an interpretation until it was brought up in this thread.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, since several folks are telling JRut he is crazy I thought there was some sort of definitive statement from the NFHS. I've always interpreted a repeated touch as the "hot stove". This 30/40/50' thing is something I never once envisioned as an interpretation until it was brought up in this thread.

OK, so I will ask you also...what is the distance (or time lag) between touches that will constitute whether it is a foul or not?

3 steps and then it is ok to touch a second time? 8 steps?

The rule seems pretty clear.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

OK, so I will ask you also...what is the distance (or time lag) between touches that will constitute whether it is a foul or not?

3 steps and then it is ok to touch a second time? 8 steps?

The rule seems pretty clear.

To you, but obviously not to everyone. I have never my career ever heard that there is a problem of defenders putting their hands on a ball-handler twice or more without it being specifically targeted at "hot stove" touching. I have heard an observer/supervisor/clinician say "hey, we can't let a defender put his hand on a ball-handler once in the backcourt, and then again in the frontcourt" (or whatever distance you want to incorporate).

[JetMetFan]

You know, if I'm wrong I'm wrong (and I don't think I am since I've had to call the rule with the same language for the past year) but I'm just confused: How is the phrase "contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands" open for interpretation?

We say a lot about the way NFHS phrases things in the rule book but if there was a time component involved it's highly likely it would have been written into the rule. If the interpretation is to allow a defender to touch once, wait some unknown amount of time/distance, touch again, wait again and touch again what was the purpose of making 10-6-12 a rule and changing the language that had been in the PoE in years past?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

You know, if I'm wrong I'm wrong (and I don't think I am since I've had to call the rule with the same language for the past year) but I'm just confused: How is the phrase "contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands" open for interpretation?
...

How is it open for interpretation? How about spirit and intent? Repeated touching has always referred to "hot stove" touching in any discussion I have on the subject.

All of a sudden when it's convenient to an argument, are we going act like the NFHS does a great job of writing a rule in ink the same way they actually intended for it be adjudicated on the court?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, since several folks are telling JRut he is crazy I thought there was some sort of definitive statement from the NFHS. I've always interpreted a repeated touch as the "hot stove". This 30/40/50' thing is something I never once envisioned as an interpretation until it was brought up in this thread.

Same here and why I asked. Because in all of our meetings, nothing like this was the description of an "absolute." And it appears that our Administrator does not feel this applies the way I am reading it here either.

Peace