Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[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.

[Raymond]

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?

My problem with the literal interpretation of the rule being advocated by some here is that it completely takes common sense out of the equation; like the common sense that tells not to call 3 seconds if somebody heels is on the lane line.

Plus you have things like I stated earlier with delay statics that occur where I officiate. You also have what JRut just brought up, where the first touch occurs in one official's primary, then a subsequent touch occurs in another's primary. That is going to occur quite often on plays where there is defensive pressure in the back court and the C picks up the play in the frontcourt.

The NFHS have proven enough times in the past that they do not always do a great job of having what's in ink match what is intended in reality.