Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Right where? I see nothing in that case about how close in time those touches were. Remember, there is supposed to be no judgement on these plays any more. How close is close enough? And by what criteria is that determined?

Well, obviously it is less than a 5 second timeframe for multiple touches in the front court.

But, seriously you really think they used the word tagging to mean something that happened 25 seconds apart? Sorry, but I'm not going to let you play dumb for this interp. You know exactly what they meant by tagging. It's quite obvious to anybody with any kind of basketball officiating intelligence, which I know you have.

[JRutledge]

I just do not get that someone thinks that if the wording in one area is the same, that the rules or application are considered to be the same. I work college football and many rules are worded the same and there is a different interpretation between the levels all the time. And no one in their right mind in football thinks that because the NCAA says something that applies to the NF. But for some reason NCAA Women's basketball or standards are so righteous that we must believe they feel the same way. It is just like in our area, we cannot even talk about these new rules without some Women's officials trying to tell us what the NCAA says what can take place in the post, even when there is no such interpretation in that either. I think this is more about stubbornness of those from the NCAA thinking that their game is somehow pure.

Oh, well.

Peace

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, obviously it is less than a 5 second timeframe for multiple touches in the front court.

I'm not sure that's obvious. There's nothing in the rule itself that limits it to a single closely guarded situation. If B1 touches A1, then A1 retreats from being closely guarded and B1 reapproaches A1, who has continuously maintained possession, and touches him, B1 has fouled by the plain language of the rule even if the second touch happens outside of 5 seconds of the first touch.

I think that's unenforceable for reasons discussed previously but it wouldn't be the first time we've seen a rule that cannot be reliable refereed.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

...
I think that's unenforceable for reasons discussed previously but it wouldn't be the first time we've seen a rule that cannot be reliable refereed.

I'm just gonna start having amnesia. First touch in the backcourt will just magically vanish from my mind.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I'm not sure that's obvious. There's nothing in the rule itself that limits it to a single closely guarded situation. If B1 touches A1, then A1 retreats from being closely guarded and B1 reapproaches A1, who has continuously maintained possession, and touches him, B1 has fouled by the plain language of the rule even if the second touch happens outside of 5 seconds of the first touch.

I think that's unenforceable for reasons discussed previously but it wouldn't be the first time we've seen a rule that cannot be reliable refereed.

Well what about the first touch in the back court with the T and then the ball handler goes into the C's primary and is touched again? Is the second touch a foul? No time limit right? Is that not in injustice if the C does not call the second touch that he did not even know there was a first touch? You really think the rules makers had that as the intention? And if that is their position, why did they not just come out and give that as an example since it is so clear to everyone? I do not work Two man, so this situation is very likely in my world.


Peace

[Smitty]

Not that it matters to anyone in the rest of the country, but this discussion prompted me to ask my assignor about the main point of contention in this discussion. He told me that he's had several discussions with the NF on this subject and the intent of the rule is definitely not to consider a single touch followed by another touch several seconds later as an absolute foul. The second touch might be a foul, but only if it affects the RSBQ of the ball handler - it would not be an absolute based on the rule. The hot stove touching, as BNR has described, is an absolute. He told me you can't take a literal interpretation of every single rule - common sense has to prevail. So this is how I will be interpreting the rule - pretty much as BNR and JRut have described. I think it makes sense.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Not that it matters to anyone in the rest of the country, but this discussion prompted me to ask my assignor about the main point of contention in this discussion.

The problem I see in this discussion, many people are unwilling to do that very thing. Instead they are taking their personal background and assuming it applies to this situation without an direct guidance. That is why I asked my people as well, because I wanted to be sure what I was being asked to do. Telling us that "The rule is clear" is not good enough when we are having a serious debate and the parties are separated based on their NCAA background.

Peace

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well what about the first touch in the back court with the T and then the ball handler goes into the C's primary and is touched again? Is the second touch a foul? No time limit right?

By the literal reading of the rule, yes.

Is that not in injustice if the C does not call the second touch that he did not even know there was a first touch?

Yes, that's why I said it's unenforceable.

You really think the rules makers had that as the intention? And if that is their position, why did they not just come out and give that as an example since it is so clear to everyone? I do not work Two man, so this situation is very likely in my world.


Peace

I find trying to read the minds of the rule committee to be an exercise in futility. I will readily agree with you that they often don't want the rules enforced the way they write them.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

By the literal reading of the rule, yes.



Yes, that's why I said it's unenforceable.



I find trying to read the minds of the rule committee to be an exercise in futility. I will readily agree with you that they often don't want the rules enforced the way they write them.

Most rules are not literal. Most rules are written and then there interpretations are there to suggest how we enforce or apply the rules. And it it is unenforceable, why would anyone suggest that this is the rule if someone claims you cannot enforce this consistently?

We cannot even have the NF agree on their interpretations about backcourt violation or what their language means. But the same people that complain about this issue, are the same people wanting to stick with an interpretation.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, obviously it is less than a 5 second timeframe for multiple touches in the front court.

But, seriously you really think they used the word tagging to mean something that happened 25 seconds apart? Sorry, but I'm not going to let you play dumb for this interp. You know exactly what they meant by tagging. It's quite obvious to anybody with any kind of basketball officiating intelligence, which I know you have.

Why 5? Why not 3 or 7? What is the cutoff? Remember they want consistency without the need for judgement. How far apart does it take for it to not be a foul?

And I do think that, practically and logically, it should actually be like that, but where do we draw the line such that it is consistently applied?

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why 5? Why not 3 or 7? What is the cutoff? Remember they want consistency without the need for judgement. How far apart does it take for it to not be a foul?

And I do think that, practically and logically, it should actually be like that, but where do we draw the line such that it is consistently applied?

Unless they add a new count for "between defensive touches", there can be no reasonable answer to that question. It ends up being common sense and judgment, just like a lot of other rules.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Unless they add a new count for "between defensive touches", there can be no reasonable answer to that question. It ends up being common sense and judgment, just like a lot of other rules.

But that is why we are in this place to start with. They have already decided and communicated that, after years of trying to get officials to apply good judgment to these situations, it wasn't working. The level of judgement officials were applying was not good enough. So, they made them absolutes with no judgement required.

It it an absolute or has nothing really changed? Are all of the absolutes really just open to some non-defined level of judgement?

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

But that is why we are in this place to start with. They have already decided and communicated that, after years of trying to get officials to apply good judgment to these situations, it wasn't working. The level of judgement officials were applying was not good enough. So, they made them absolutes with no judgement required.

It it an absolute or has nothing really changed? Are all of the absolutes really just open to some non-defined level of judgement?

I think you're far too tunnel visioned on this one specific scenario. The absolutes are still there - it's just when the multiple single touches are not immediate - that's where our judgement has to take over. I like the explanation I was given - it's clear enough and it makes sense.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

But that is why we are in this place to start with. They have already decided and communicated that, after years of trying to get officials to apply good judgment to these situations, it wasn't working. The level of judgement officials were applying was not good enough. So, they made them absolutes with no judgement required.

It it an absolute or has nothing really changed? Are all of the absolutes really just open to some non-defined level of judgement?

Do you think it is better, for the sake of consistency, to make an edict stating it is absolutely a foul every time the same defender touches a ball handler more than once, even if neither touch, taken individually, is a foul? That philosophy makes no sense at all. Taken literally, the rule swings the pendulum way too far in the other direction. Two touches, neither of which individually are fouls, separated by time and distance were not where the problem of poor judgment was occurring. The problem was multiple, continuous touches that were not being called. The NCAA-M rule makes more sense logically, is more in line with the rest of the rule book in regards to what constitutes a foul, and makes more sense mechanistically (unless you want to encourage more ball watching).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Do you think it is better, for the sake of consistency, to make an edict stating it is absolutely a foul every time the same defender touches a ball handler more than once, even if neither touch, taken individually, is a foul?

Yes...and so does the NCAA...both men an women. That is the point of the 4 absolutes. Of course, the specific absolutes can be and have been defined somewhat differently. I can imagine several occurrences of all four of the absolutes that I would not previously have called a foul. The NCAA and the NFHS decided that the judgement we were all applying to these plays, after years to POEs was not good enough. So, they took the judgement away (in slightly different ways).

Originally Posted by johnny d

That philosophy makes no sense at all. Taken literally, the rule swings the pendulum way too far in the other direction. Two touches, neither of which individually are fouls, separated by time and distance were not where the problem of poor judgment was occurring.

Maybe, or maybe those in charge felt that those touches should have often been fouls too. If not for an advantage, why does a defender need to ever put their hands on the ball handler? They split the difference and give the one defender on minor touch for free.

Originally Posted by johnny d

The problem was multiple, continuous touches that were not being called. The NCAA-M rule makes more sense logically, is more in line with the rest of the rule book in regards to what constitutes a foul, and makes more sense mechanistically (unless you want to encourage more ball watching).

Not really, two touches, back to back, neither of which would be fouls on their own just because they happen within 3-4 seconds are not any more a foul than touches that happen 10 or more seconds apart.

But again, I don't like the timeless element because I do agree that it really is not what they wanted to eliminate and it would be impractical to administer consistently across coverage areas.