Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

How is it open for interpretation? How about spirit and intent? Repeated touching has always referred to "hot stove" touching.

I have always interpreted "hot stove" as meaning one touch, immediately removed.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I have always interpreted "hot stove" as meaning one touch, immediately removed.

Not around here. One touch = sizing up; 2 or more = hot stove.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I have always interpreted "hot stove" as meaning one touch, immediately removed.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Not around here. One touch = sizing up; 2 or more = hot stove.

Yeah hot stove is a foul. One touch is not a foul.

[rockyroad]

Hot stove touching would be one example of touching a player more than once with the same or alternating hands.

It's certainly not the only example.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Hot stove touching would be one example of touching a player more than once with the same or alternating hands.

It's certainly not the only example.

Well then there has to be more examples given if they want everyone on the same page. Otherwise we are going to have different interpretations of this rule. Because as a Men's college official, this situation has never been referenced as a foul that I can tell. And I have looked at every bulletin Adams has put out and never have I seen any such standard and the NCAA Men's Rules are practically the same as the NCAA Women's Rule. And on the Men's side, they emphasize heavily RSBQ in their video training and bulletins.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well then there has to be more examples given if they want everyone on the same page. Otherwise we are going to have different interpretations of this rule. Because as a Men's college official, this situation has never been referenced as a foul that I can tell. And I have looked at every bulletin Adams has put out and never have I seen any such standard and the NCAA Men's Rules are practically the same as the NCAA Women's Rule. And on the Men's side, they emphasize heavily RSBQ in their video training and bulletins.

Peace

They are still emphasizing RSBQ on the hands-off "absolutes"??? So why would a hot-stove touch ever be a foul?

I really just would like someone to explain the distance between touches aspect...

First touch at halfcourt line and second touch at head of key = foul???

First touch 2 feet before halfcourt line and second touch at head of key = no foul?

What is the distance that should be traveled between touches?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

They are still emphasizing RSBQ on the hands-off "absolutes"??? So why would a hot-stove touch ever be a foul?

Absolutes and RSBQ are not mutually exclusive. They are often used hand and hand with each other, but the absolutes suggest that these situations are above everything and need to be called. The play we are talking about, has never been used as an example of a hot-stove situation from my point of view.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I really just would like someone to explain the distance between touches aspect...

I am not going to explain this, because this was never my interpretation of any of the rules.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

First touch at halfcourt line and second touch at head of key = foul???

First touch 2 feet before halfcourt line and second touch at head of key = no foul?

Isn't that what some people are suggesting from the NCAA Women's side and filtering it into the NF rules or interpretations? I say no unless RSBQ was changed by either touch. Heck we do not have a second touch if the first touch changes RSBQ of the ball handler. I have the same answer for both.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

What is the distance that should be traveled between touches?

I'm not suggesting distance is a major factor. But if one thing happens that is not a foul, I am not going to say just a touch several feet or at a different time is a foul on a touch that does not fit the rules at a separate time. Heck what many are saying is that it is very possible that one officials would have to be aware of a first touch in one part of the court and call the foul based on that first touch the second contact regardless of RSBQ influence. I have always interpreted that a second touch of hands is always a rather immediate action, one after the other, not one incident and then several seconds later another.

Peace