Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[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

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Rich

We had someone from Referee at one of our meetings and let's just say he's very close to the process. He told us:

(1) There's no time element
(2) E-W vs. N-S doesn't matter
(3) There's no difference with respect to a player and where he has the ball. If he has the ball in the post, for example, and there's two touches or a touch with two hands, or an extended forearm -- it is a foul.

I expect there will be further clarification on all this. At least I hope there will be. Still, everything is local. A state's wishes will supersede the NFHS's 100% of the time.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Rich already mentioned this.

[Camron Rust]

The fundamental point behind these changes is that all of the rules making bodies are trying get defenders to not defend ball handlers (defined differently by each organization) using their hands.

After years of not being successful in getting officials at all levels to apply proper judgement on these calls, they have decided to take judgement out of these situations entirely and make them absolutes.

Anyone that tries to add judgement back into these four situations to justify not making a call is going against the principles the rules making bodies are trying to establish.

Now, if your entire state/organization decides they want to do it another way, fine, but it still is what it is....a deviation from the actual rules. If you apply judgement to any of the 4 absolutes, you are outside of the rules. They are not supposed to be judgement calls.