Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Isn't that exactly what the NF is trying to get rid of? Your "I'll know it when I see it" is different from your partners, and the next crew, and the next, etc...

So make it simple...a second touch with the same or alternate hands is a foul. And voila - there is no need to judge each touch on it's own merits - a second touch is a foul. Don't do it. They get the message really quickly.

I've never had a problem calling contact on dribblers, so the rule isn't targeting me. I don't need to wait for 2 touches 30' and 10 seconds apart. I get the first one.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

2 minutes apart? Seriously? When was the last game you worked where one kid dribbled for 2 minutes?

In HS...I have worked more than a handful of games where a kid has held the ball for 1-2 minutes as a delaying tactic.

And you still didn't answer the question. What is the arbitrary time limit where you don't dismiss the question with a response of "seriously"?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And you still didn't answer the question. What is the arbitrary time limit where you don't dismiss the question with a response of "seriously"?

OK...I will not work a game this season without a shot clock. HS games all have either 30 or 35 second shot clocks here. So I won't see a 2 minute time frame that you are so worried about.

To answer your question - which by the way you have yet to do for my question - as long as that player is still a ballhandler, that defender may not touch them a second time with either hand. There is no time limit and there is no distance limit for me.

Now...what is your arbitrary distance where you will no longer call the second touch a foul without dismissing the question by asking another question?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

OK...I will not work a game this season without a shot clock. HS games all have either 30 or 35 second shot clocks here. So I won't see a 2 minute time frame that you are so worried about.

JAR brought it up since some of you were insistent that a second touch, no matter how long and how far from the first touch, had to be a foul. Some of us do not work HS games that have shot clocks (imagine that), so some of us work games where a PG will dribble out the last 1-2 minutes of a quarter. So based on your interpretation of the rule, if that PG had a hand touch him when he first received the ball in the backcourt with 1:56 remaining, then got touched again with 0:10 remaining, that is an automatic foul. But your response to calling a foul in that situation when I post it was "seriously". Now you are changing up and saying you would call a foul. Not my fault you had to be a smart-a$$ because it was too much to consider that the shot clock is not universal.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

...To answer your question - which by the way you have yet to do for my question - as long as that player is still a ballhandler, that defender may not touch them a second time with either hand. There is no time limit and there is no distance limit for me.

Now...what is your arbitrary distance where you will no longer call the second touch a foul without dismissing the question by asking another question?

I don't have a time limit or distance limit. I'll continue to do what I do until the FED interprets the "second touch" has anytime, anywhere.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

JAR brought it up since some of you were insistent that a second touch, no matter how long and how far from the first touch, had to be a foul. Some of us do not work HS games that have shot clocks (imagine that), so some of us work games where a PG will dribble out the last 1-2 minutes of a quarter. So based on your interpretation of the rule, if that PG had a hand touch him when he first received the ball in the backcourt with 1:56 remaining, then got touched again with 0:10 remaining, that is an automatic foul. But your response to calling a foul in that situation when I post it was "seriously". Now you are changing up and saying you would call a foul. Not my fault you had to be a smart-a$$ because it was too much to consider that the shot clock is not universal.

Exactly. I only work one high school set of games with a shot clock an that is in a Christmas high level tournament. I will work 4 games in that tournament every year. But every other game is no shot clock and at the end of many quarters, a player might hold the ball for near a minute and 2 minutes is not out of the question either.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't have a time limit or distance limit. I'll continue to do what I do until the FED interprets the "second touch" has anytime, anywhere.

These rules that were put into place, has just justified how I have been calling the game for the most part for years. The "second touch" anytime and anywhere is a new element I have never heard discussed previously. And that is why I asked my people for their answer. I will even talk to the head clinician this weekend as he has a college meeting we must attend as he is the supervisor. I will ask his take for further clarification. But something tells me the NF is not going to address this directly.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

JAR brought it up since some of you were insistent that a second touch, no matter how long and how far from the first touch, had to be a foul. Some of us do not work HS games that have shot clocks (imagine that), so some of us work games where a PG will dribble out the last 1-2 minutes of a quarter. So based on your interpretation of the rule, if that PG had a hand touch him when he first received the ball in the backcourt with 1:56 remaining, then got touched again with 0:10 remaining, that is an automatic foul. But your response to calling a foul in that situation when I post it was "seriously". Now you are changing up and saying you would call a foul. Not my fault you had to be a smart-a$$ because it was too much to consider that the shot clock is not universal.




I don't have a time limit or distance limit. I'll continue to do what I do until the FED interprets the "second touch" has anytime, anywhere.

Didn't realize you still worked a lot of HS games. Most of the stuff you posted here referenced NCAA-M interps. So the "seriously" comment was warranted.
And I didn't change anything. But you keep getting your panties in a wad if you want to.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Didn't realize you still worked a lot of HS games. Most of the stuff you posted here referenced NCAA-M interps. So the "seriously" comment was warranted.
And I didn't change anything. But you keep getting your panties in a wad if you want to.

This a HS discussion, right? Again, not my fault what assumptions you decide to make. I never brought a NCAA-Men's interpretation into the discussion.

Only folks flipping out are people like you who insist all interpretations of a rule should be based on your context only. But I can be a jerk also, if need be. It's really not that hard has evidence by you.

[OKREF]

I kind of agree with BNR here. The NCAA M/W rule is irrelevant to this discussion. The NFHS rule is different than those 2. The only time it would be relevant is in those states that choose to apply the NCAA rule as an interpretation.

The NFHS rule clearly doesn't say any time or distance should be accounted for. Now reasonable minds can agree/disagree about this, however as it was stated earlier the rep from Referee Magazine has said that time and distance is irrelevant.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I kind of agree with BNR here. The NCAA M/W rule is irrelevant to this discussion. The NFHS rule is different than those 2. The only time it would be relevant is in those states that choose to apply the NCAA rule as an interpretation.

The NFHS rule clearly doesn't say any time or distance should be accounted for. Now reasonable minds can agree/disagree about this, however as it was stated earlier the rep from Referee Magazine has said that time and distance is irrelevant.

I am not a NASO Member currently, what was said in Referee Magazine?

I did see some comments where Mrs. Wynn addressed some quick questions, but I do not recall this specific issue being addressed. Or was this someone else's comments that I am not aware of at this time?

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I kind of agree with BNR here. The NCAA M/W rule is irrelevant to this discussion. The NFHS rule is different than those 2. The only time it would be relevant is in those states that choose to apply the NCAA rule as an interpretation.

The NFHS rule clearly doesn't say any time or distance should be accounted for. Now reasonable minds can agree/disagree about this, however as it was stated earlier the rep from Referee Magazine has said that time and distance is irrelevant.

The problem is that the NF rule and the NCAA-W rule is NOT different. Other than the order of the 4 points (a,b,c,and d) they are the same wording.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

This a HS discussion, right? Again, not my fault what assumptions you decide to make. I never brought a NCAA-Men's interpretation into the discussion.

Only folks flipping out are people like you who insist all interpretations of a rule should be based on your context only. But I can be a jerk also, if need be. It's really not that hard has evidence by you.

Other than you being upset by me asking the question "Seriously?", exactly when was I a jerk to you? I asked you to give me a time and distance limitation...you got your feelings hurt by that?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Other than you being upset by me asking the question "Seriously?", exactly when was I a jerk to you? I asked you to give me a time and distance limitation...you got your feelings hurt by that?

I am going to suspect that no one here is upset or hurt by your comments. I think the fact is that you did not read the comments that started this conversation about this issue of time and distance between touches. You went after me saying I was creating a personal issue/interpretation that was previously discussed by others using a level that many of us here do not work or know about. Then you dismissed a point of view as if it was silly and when asked a question in return, you blow it off with "seriously?"

Right or wrong, this is a healthy discussion and should be treated as such. This is why I asked my higher ups what they thought and did they feel the NCAAW's interpretation should apply to the high school game in my state. But what tends to be sad sometimes is that people cannot separate their personal feelings towards people to have a serious discussion about facts that were mentioned in the actual topic. Rather they would like to assume someone is ignoring a rule because it does not fit their position that was never addressed by the main governing body.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I've never had a problem calling contact on dribblers, so the rule isn't targeting me. I don't need to wait for 2 touches 30' and 10 seconds apart. I get the first one.

Same here. The first touch is often a foul. Players cannot help themselves most of the time. Then when you call it a few times, you do not have to call it again in the same way.

Peace