Freedom of Movement 10-6-12
 

How does the "new rule" on contact on a ball handler on the perimeter compare to how you would call this type of contact it in the post area?

FED makes no distinction between a "ball handler" on the perimeter and a "post player" with the ball. If the player has the ball, the rules on illegal contact (2 hands, one hand continuously, extended arm bar, hands repeatedly) apply.

Now, if there is legal contact with a post player without the ball, and the player receives a pass, I will give the defense a (fraction of a) second to remove the (now) illegal contact.

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

2012-13 NFHS Points of Emphasis:
b. Post play. Any tactic using hands, arms or body to control the movement of an opposing player.
Examples of illegal post play.
1. Hooking by the offensive player
2. Pushing, holding or slapping an opponent
3. Dislodging an opponent by using a leg or knee to the rear of an opponent
4. Dislodging an opponent by backing them down

True. Case play, 10.6.12 .B
A1 receives a pass in the lane. B1 (a) places 2 hands on the dribbler, (b) places an extended arm bar on the dribbler, (c), places and keeps a hand on the dribbler, (d) contacts the dribbler more than once with the same hand or alternating hands.
RULING: Illegal in all cases. A personal foul shall be called any time this type of contact occurs on a player holding or dribbling the ball.

Rationale given by NFHS was that if they issued this as an actual rule, rather than merely a POE, it would actually be called by us. Whether or not a dribbler is able to "play through it" is apparently no longer a factor. They want it cleaned up out top. They want these four things called. "Automatics." Previous year's POE's and emphasis on RSBQ had a beneficial effect on many of us the past several years and that seemed to have a good effect on the perimeter. At least for many.
As mentioned previously, this exact phraseology was adopted as a POE for NCAA-W several years ago. Can any women's officials testify as to how those four "automatics" are doing now? Did they make it into the book as actual rules? Are your officials still calling it according to these four criteria? Any problems? Is it working for NCAA-W?

NCAA, on both sides, made these automatics as written rules in the book last year.

As APG correctly points out, both NCAA codes put the guidelines in as rules last season. NFHS is mirroring NCAAM (Appendix III-4-g) in terms of post play. NCAAW allows contact on a post player with or without the ball as long as the contact isn't illegal (Appendix III-3-a & b).

Freddy, I think it only seems as though NCAAW was doing it last season because there was lots of talk about it on the women's side and - no offense to the NCAAM officials here - it appeared as though we were more consistent with it. To answer your questions:

*The "automatics" appear to be working. The toughest one seems to be the arm bar on the dribbler. I know sometimes it takes me a beat to remember it's an automatic.
*Yes, we're still calling it. Our supervisors beat it into our heads every time there is a meeting/conference call. Cleaning up the post is this year's target.
*The numbers show it's working because scoring was up last season and not because of extra FTs. Shooting percentages were up and turnovers were down.

It works for us because the coaches buy into them and supervisors have been true to their word in supporting those of us who call them and penalizing those who don't.

I was at camp this summer, and we were told it was only supposed to apply outside the lane area. This case play clearly makes no distinction.

Note (not that you don't know this, but for others) also that "post player" is defined in NCAAW and can include a player with the ball as long as her back is to the basket. Once she faces the basket, she moves from being a Post Player to a Ball Handler and the absolutes apply.

I agree with you on the difficulty with "arm bar". Part of if, I think, is that (a) the term isn't defined and (b) a "collapsed arm bar" is not an automatic. at what point does it go from "collapse" to "extended"?

OKREF, was it a HS camp? An NCAAM camp? AN NCAAW camp?

The camps I attended we applied the NCAAW interpretation because they were NCAAW camps and we may have figured - incorrectly as it turns out - NFHS would follow our code since it follows our code in many other areas (airborne shooter, etc.). Truth be told, if we wanted the HS kids to get used to what they'll see starting next month we should have been using the NCAAM code.


Bob, it's defined in Appendix III-3 in Section A under Ball Handler or Dribbler (An arm-bar is contact with the forearm that is away from the body).

During the camps I attended where Jon Levinson was an observer or clinician it was mentioned that "collapsed arm bar" or "extended arm bar" may not be needed in the rule book since by definition it's a forearm away from the body. He said he'll take a look at it for the rule book next year.

Sounds like you have a few people still trying to hang on to the old rules.

It was a HS camp. Our director of officials told us he contacted the NFHS during the camp weekend and told us the NFHS said it was to apply outside of the lane area. I don't have this in an email or bullet point of any kind. Just going by what the director said the NFHS told him.

The problem with NFHS saying something like this is there is no such thing as the "lane area" in the HS code. It's defined under both NCAA codes (the three-second lane and approximately three feet just outside the lane on all sides). If this is what NFHS really wanted that's fine but the rule needed to be modified to reflect it.

I am not sure I agree that women's basketball officials were more consistent. The basketball I saw there were a lot of fouls. I know on the Men's side there were even more fouls than ever for most of the time. Games almost never fit in that 2 hour window that TV likes to use with TV Guides because of the amount of fouls being called.

And NCAAM does not care whether you have the ball in the post or on the perimeter, it is a foul if you violate the "absolutes." That is the way I saw it called all year in games I worked or games I watched.

On the HS side, we were told not call those fouls no matter where they take place. I do not have a lot of confidence in anything the NF says anyway as it appears they often say different things based on who is talking or sharing information.

Peace

Make Up Your Mind ...
 

And things change, or get deemphasized, from year to year. Stupid NFHS.

These situations call for the game Official to apply shrewd judgement. Although hand checking violations are more "visible" when occurring on the perimeter than in the post, these violations do allow the Defender to "gain an advantage". Even if an offensive post player is slashing across the lane moving towards the ball and the defender has slightly impeded his cut.

Believe me, Jeff, I didn't mean to say my side was more consistent. That's why I said "appeared." My side may have harped on it more in the preseason. Who knows? I do know Freddy isn't the first person I've heard say the guidelines were an NCAAW thing last season.

I'm with you on the NF side of things (we're agreeing again...I'm waiting for the lightning). I can already see the mess beginning since the powers that be put out the rule but didn't make a blanket statement as to how it should be called. I'm sure you saw on the FB site that some say their boards want the rule called the way NCAAM has it while others want the NCAAW interpretation. So much for NF helping IAABO achieve its goal of "one rule, one interpretation."

I do not watch a lot women's college basketball until basically the Final Four and I openly admit that fact. All I know is that there were a lot of fouls in the Men's game and there was no distinction between when these things were to be called as it relates to the post or the perimeter. It did not need to be talked about because no one said what was done in one part of the court should be called any differently. Actually it was emphasized that the actions with all the absolutes that were put into the rules were the same. And that is what was told to us in meetings and from D1 officials at the conference staff meetings I work. That is why I do not know why who is a post player or what the definition of one even matters in this discussion. If the women's side was having that conversation, that is news to me as I do not work that side.

Peace

That's the difference. I watch both because there's more NCAAM on TV (obviously). Until I saw some of the posts here I never realized there *was* a difference in terms of how post play is dealt with.

I'll tell you one thing, I hope NF standardizes something fast. If someone only works HS in one state/area it won't be a problem but if you work in two states (for me it could be NY & NJ but I stick with NY) and the states have two different interps that's going to affect officials *and* teams. The mess has already been made. Lets see how/if it's cleaned up.

Well this is not an issue for most officials I am sure. I guess I could like many other officials work in another state like Wisconsin or Indiana and previously Iowa and Missouri, but that would be a hassle. So I do not see this as an issue and most officials I doubt work multiple states. Also states have no incentive to standardize in an interpretation, which the NF allows to happen anyway. At least in Illinois, not much benefit for a team to play a lot of teams from another state. I know for me I am lucky if I get one team out of state to play an Illinois team. Just like there is no incentive for the NCAAM committee to do what the NCAAW committee does either. That is mostly our problem if we choose to work in those situations.

Peace

Went to a meeting this morning and conversation broke out on this topic...

B1 defending dribbler a1.. Puts one hand on him in backcourt..a1 continues up the court now in front court..b1 again one hand on him...are you calling this a foul? Or is it when done repeated and constant manner in short time frame.

We had the same discussion. We came to the conclusion, if the defender puts a hand on and removes, and maintains the 6 ft guarding space, any other touch would draw the whistle. If the 6 ft requirement is removed, then the second touch wouldn't draw a whistle.

[QUOTE=

B1 defending dribbler a1.. Puts one hand on him in backcourt..a1 continues up the court now in front court..b1 again one hand on him...are you calling this a foul?[/QUOTE]



Not a chance I am calling a foul on this play, nor did I see it called that way in any college game I worked or watched last season. Two touches occurring 40-80 feet apart, I hope you spent the off season fine tuning your game management skills.

You may not have seen it but I do know in NCAAW we've been told the foul is supposed to be called on the second touch regardless of whether it happens two feet after the first or 80 feet after the first. The rule states in NFHS and <del>NCAA</del> NCAAW that it's a foul when a defender contacts the ball handler/dribbler more than once with the same hand or with alternating hands. There are no time or distance limits between touches written into the rule which means no limits exist.

I had at least one instance last season when B1 contacted A1 as A1 was nearing the division line then B1 contacted A1 again about 5 or 6 seconds later and I called the foul. B's head coach complained but after I made the call I told her the first contact was in the backcourt. She didn't say another word and my supervisor never brought it up (and believe me, he would have brought it up).

Sound reasoable
 

This sounds like a good baseline to begin with. This is where our judgement should come in. I think of the "hot stove" test as meaning the two touches happen together. I was always told to see it as hand on, hand off, hand on, hand off, hand on...

Under the new rule I don't care where it happens (FC/BC) I just care that it happens. But I do think its reasonable to play on if there is a significant amount of time between the two touches. The intent of the rule is to penalize the defense for those hand checks that would "bother" the dribbler and thus disrupt their play (or freedom of movement) but were not getting called by some officials.

I plan to call this by looking at it from three perspectives: 1) If in my judgement the two touches disrupt the dribbler then I will call it no matter how far apart they are; 2) If in my judgement I think the dribbler is not affected and the two touches are faaaaaaaaar apart, I probably will not call it (but I may verbalize hands off); 3) If the two touches are close together, I will always call it wether or not the dribbler is disrupted. Of course, game management, my partner's calls, and other factors will influence how I call it on a day to day basis but for the most part I intend to call it as written using the professional judgement I am paid for.

I am not calling that. And there is still a thing in the rulebook, which has never been changed called "incidental contact." So a play with that far apart situation I do not see any reason to make that kind of call IMO.

Peace

If you're planning to call the rule in this fashion - and if others do the same - what was the purpose of changing the guidelines from a PoE into a rule in the first place?


What does being closely guarded have to do with the rule as its written?

The rule was changed because some never called this foul unless there was clear displacement or advantage/disadvantage. I called this foul regularly in the past and plan to keep calling it. I don't think my explaination of how I will be calling deviates from the new rule -- and as I said in #1 & #3, if they touch with two hands I will call it.

However, I also believe that it is not reasonable nor the intent of the rule to call a foul if it has been a very long time before the player touches the dribbler a second time, which is my #2. For arguements sake, say B1 touches A1 once right after he gets the inbound pass near the endline in the back court, then A1 dribbles all the way down the floor to the other endline goes under the basket through the lane and dribbles back out to near half court before B1 touches A1 the second time. I just don't see how I can call that foul.

I am sure most of the time the touches will be fairly close together and I will definetly get it when it happens. I have already been villainized in summer & fall league by coaches, parents, & kids because they think I am calling this too tightly.

I have not read the new NFHS version of the rule yet. I was told it was the same as the NCAA-M, but that could be erroneous information. I have no idea what the NCAA-W rule states. However, the NCAA-M rule states it is illegal to continually jab an opponent by extending an arm and placing a hand or forearm on the opponent. As you can see below (taken directly from dictionary for definition of continually), at least in the NCAA-M version of the rule, time and distance are part of the rule as defined.


1.

very often; at regular or frequent intervals; habitually.


2.

without cessation or intermission; unceasingly; always.

Here's the text of the new rule:

10-6-12

The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a ball handler/dribbler:

a. Placing two hands on the player.

b. Placing an extended arm bar on the player.

c. Placing and keeping a hand on the dribbler.

d. Contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands.

My mistake, Johnny (and everyone else). Welpe's post shows the language in the NFHS rule. It's essentially taken from NCAAW. The NCAAM element of the rule - if you will - is there's no distinction made for players in/near the lane since NFHS doesn't define the lane area.

I've corrected the original post where you took my quote.

So now we're back to using our judgment in certain situations which the rule tried to remove...because we were letting too much go in the past. Here's what NFHS has as the intent of the rule:

The intent is to clean up perimeter play and restore freedom of movement to the game. The new rule clearly explains specific contact that should be called a foul. This criteria should provide for more understanding of illegal contact for coaches and players, and improved enforcement by officials.

Maybe I'm giving NFHS too much credit but if the goal was to have time limits on touches in the rule they'd have been included.

The rule does not come from either side of the NCAA, these were NCAA rules not a rule specific to gender. These were guidelines first, then put into actual rules, but were followed either way for years. NCAA Men's side wanted the contact to stop and made that clear it did not matter where it took place on the court. That is what the videos indicated and the comments from Adams indicated.

Peace

JetMet, not a problem. As I said, I hadn't read the NFHS rule yet, and was told it was the same as the NCAA-M, which is obviously not the case. Since this became a rule after they started doing separate books for men and women, I did not know what was in the women's rule. I was just pointing out that the NCAA-M rule does imply that time between touches should be considered.

The NFHS rule doesn't either. But say we're in the front court, closely guarded situation and the defender puts a hand on the ball handler. Now say 4 seconds has elapsed and the closely guarded situation has gone away. Now another 4 seconds goes by and the same defender puts his hand on the same ball handler. Are you going to call a foul?

I think that, in order to be applied consistently, a separation of time will have to erase the fact that there was a touch.

Coverage of a play currently changes through the course of action based on primaries. If we are to consider a prior touch from a long time before, there would have to be some way for each official to know what the other officials already saw OR an official would stay on a matchup anywhere on the court if player control had begun in their primary. Neither are practical or even likely to be consistent.

It does't say so in the rule, but I'd suggest that the only way this can be consistently applied is for a prior touch to be ignored if there is enough space between the players such that it is not the same match-up situation....i.e. no closely guarded count.

To give a definitive answer, I would have to see a specific play. I know part of the reason for going to these automatics is to make these calls more consistent and eliminate differences in judgment, but with an 8 second separation between touches, I am still treating this as a judgment call. I would lean towards no, I am not calling a foul in the situation described. Establish/maintaining closely guarded position is not written into the rule, but I am most likely treating this as two separate plays once the closely guarded situation is lost. I think the NFHS and NCAA-W are making a mistake by not including the qualifier, continually, found in the NCAA-M wording.

Luckily for me, the few HS games I officiate each season are played in an area where the vast majority of coaches, players, officials, and assignors would view two touches separated by a significant amount of time, the same way I do, as two separate plays. Therefore, I do not expect to have any problems using more of an NCAA-M philosophy in this particular instance.

Cameron brings up a good point here. Depending upon where the first touch occurred, there is a good possibility I wont even be aware of it. Further, most times, I am not staying with a play once it leaves my primary, so there is a good chance I wouldn't see the second touch.

Yes, but I understand where Cameron and Johnny d are coming from in relation to the play. Since I worked under the NCAAW rule in 90% of my games last season I got into the habit of saying "one" to myself when the first touch was made so the second wasn't a surprise. I'll say I was more likely to see the second - even if there was a decent amount of time between touches - during a GV game because those were 2-person and the PCA is larger. I picked up a couple in NCAAW games but those players generally passed the ball more often.

I don't look at it as going back to using judgement because I haven't stopped using judgement. Every rule, no matter how black & white it seems, will have nuances that require officials to use good judgement to enforce rules. The best, most professional refs use their experience, knowledge, and skill to judge when and how to apply the rules in all situations. Hopefully, the large majority in our profession are working hard everyday to gain experience, learn, and improve as refs. But refs who blow a whistle just because a rule says it can be blown (not based on judgement) are no better than refs who don't make calls because they lack the understanding or desire to apply the rules correctly. Both are signs of incompetence or inexperience.

In another thread today about calling a double dribble there are some very experienced refs saying they would leave it alone if they were far from the play which shows that even though it is a clearly written rule good refs use judgement when making calls. What about MS girls games or that book that isn't quite ready 10 minutes prior to game time or the countless other examples of times in the past when good refs have considered the circumstances surrounding the event to make a judgement about how to enforce rules.

Those of us who, using our good judgement, were already calling these fouls will still call them. Some refs will start calling it now that it has been emphasized to the extreme and there will be some who still just don't get it.

The problem with that is that the NFHS has, for years, basically been telling us that, with respect to fouls on the ball handler, our judgement sucks. They tried saying it nicely with POEs and such.

So many went along thinking their judgement was fine and they must be talking to someone else that they have resorted to making it absolutes...pretty much taking judgement out of it. Why? Because those that thought their judgment was fine will still think so and will not get that the message is for them.


As for the double dribble situation, that isn't about judgement but an entirely different topic.

2 hands = foul.

Extended touch = foul.

Repeated touch = foul.

Extended arm arm bar = foul.

Those who try to apply personal judgment to this rather than blowing the whistle and calling the damned foul are going to make life hard for those of us who have committed to do our jobs.

Is that one an arm bar with both arms? :p

We had someone pretty close to all this at our association meeting last night.

There is no time or distance factor for the 2 touches. As long as the ball handler remains the ball handler and the defender is the same defender, one touch can be in the backcourt and one in the frontcourt and closely guarded is irrelevant -- it's a foul.

I'm not surprised that people are already looking for reasons to not call fouls -- it's why we have these automatics now in the first place, really.

No, that would be a (2 x arm) bar. :)

Yeah, but if there is a clear separation between touches, then I think that is not the actual intent of the rule. The rule is to stop constant using of hands on a ball handler. If one touch happens in the back court and then 20 feet later there is a touch in the front court with a chasing defender, I am not calling that a foul just because there was a second touch. I am still using the guide of RSBQ to help me decide when these are fouls anyway. And I call as many of these fouls as anyone. I am just still going to use common sense and there still is the rule for incidental contact. If someone from my state wants to suggest otherwise, then I will possibly change that opinion. But as of last year, we were told about RSBQ extensively and these rules were our state's POE on the topic.

Peace

How did your group decide how the T is to know the C had the first touch already when the play crosses primaries?

Jeff, You may not realize it but they're talking to you.

Well they are not talking to me, because our state and state administrator had already spoken about this a year ago with us. It was a statewide POE with the very same rules applied last year. There was even a Webinar to clarify the position from the Administrators in the sport. And we were calling more things than the NF suggested a year ago because that is stand or interpretation our state said how these situations should be called. And yes they used RSBQ (not my personal position) to describe how fouls should be called, along with the all other absolutes.

I know it is hard, but states have the right to make their position known. I have not heard anyone suggest that a touch in one area of the court means another touch in a completely different area of the court is a foul. I will wait for the video, but this discussion with all due respect is irrelevant to me as to what I will be calling.

Peace

Just to set the record straight...

I agree that all of the above are fouls that should be called and will be called when I'm on the floor. And, like many of you, I did not need to go from a POE to a rule for me to blow my whistle. I applied "good" judgement to do my job. But I still believe there will be situations that occur when a true professional may use "good" judgement and decide to not blow the whistle. I'm not advocating that we go looking for it, just allowing that maybe once a season it might happen and we should be open to it.

As for the second statement, those of us who have the judgement to know when to blow the whistle and when not to are also committed to do our jobs. The problem for all of us has been and always will be those who won't make the effort to get better or who apply their own set of rules/mechanics to the game, not those who on a few rare occassions apply judgement to rare situations . Unfortunately, the people this rule change was aimed at will still refuse to call these fouls because they either don't know better (incompetence, poor training) or they think they know better than the rest of us.

Some of us seem to be getting hung up on judgement. The job of a referree is all about judgement -- its the very nature of what we are supposed to do. All refs use judgement but what seperates good refs from bad refs is that we use "good" judgement.

We know. You'll do your own thing regardless of what the rules say. Not the first time.

BTW, I'm not talking about the well separated 1st and 2nd touch, just the use of RSBQ which the NFHS has basically said is not being applied correctly...that the player is being affected even though people are incorrectly justifying no calls under the guise of RSBQ. They're saying their RSBQ is being affected and people still are not calling it.

The use of RSBQ was referenced by our state basketball administrator (Boy's basketball to be specific). RSBQ was referenced in the State Rules Interpretation PowerPoint before the year (last year) when the state took a hard stance on these interpretations. It was talked about out of his mouth in the Webinar that the same person I referenced and it was talked about again by him at meetings throughout the state before and during the season. So no, it is not what I wanted to do or a personal interpretation, it was what they wanted us to do. I was even surprised when they used the language because it comes from high levels. But that is what they asked all clinicians to teach and repeat to their association membership and at camps, which I run from time to time.

Oh, and the NF when you contact them directly about an interpretation, they direct you to your state people for an interpretation. Oh, and this was before the rules changed once again the stance of the IHSA (similar to what happened to JAR when he contacted Ms. Wynn in the off season).

I know, I know, you want to tell everyone how the NF is the only body that can comment on rules and interpretations (silly rabbit). Just like my state has a different interpretation on uniforms (Board changed the policy and how the rule was interpreted about 4 years ago) or even had a policy about recognition of religious and special accommodations for those uniforms years before the NF even addressed the issue (it is in this year's NF PowerPoint, but the IHSA had the same policy for over 7 or 8 years based on situations that took place in this state).

So glad I do not have to listen to people like you about these things. You are not a member of the NF that gets to decide what states tell their officials and you obviously have no idea how different states take positions against the rules or interpretations of the National Federation based on your comments here. A similar situation even happened this year in football on the targeting rule and the free kick situations where my state took a different stance in order to bring clarity to a National Federation hole in their so-called new rules for this season.

And I must be doing something right, I advanced in the playoffs and one step from the highest level in my state (and I am a state clinician). So I must have no idea what I am talking about.

But hey, you know. :rolleyes:

Peace

You can't have it both ways. In one post, you're claiming that the new rule means one thing and in another you're saying your state decided to do something different that what the rule says. Once you can make up your mind, choose one story.

I am telling you what our state said about this issue last year, before the NF made it an actual rule. How do you think the NF comes up with rules? They come up with rules that their membership votes on or suggests. You think that my state along with others might have suggested a rules change or change in the language to reflect what the NCAA was doing? Oh, the NCAA uses RSBQ as their interpretation as well and put in the rules the "absolutes" or guidelines for hand-checking and other contact with ball handler.

For the record, this is a conversation stated by someone other than me from my state.

New Rules and handchecking

My comments back in May of this year



Peace

Will this ultimately be treated differently than a lot of other things in the book? Enforcement/interpretation of a rule varies tremendously from game to game and official to official. The biggest problem I have here is the conflict between the black and white language of the rule and the concept of advantage/disadvantage. Late in the game with fouls to give B1 can body up aggressively. If A1 starts to turn the corner on him just give a couple of quick touches and the play starts over again. Or will this raise the question of calling intentional for the two quick touches?

Funny, but we didn't have a whole lot of "yeah, but..." conversations about the guidelines when they told us to call them in NCAAW last year. The rule says the second touch is a foul. Period. There's no time element. There's no worry about whether B1 does it just for the sake of not being beat on a drive. There's no RSBQ, at least when it comes to this rule.

The fact enforcement/interpretation varies from game to game and official to official is why they put the guidelines in effect in the first place. The goal is to get rid of those variances because we (collectively) hadn't been doing a great job using our judgment. If everyone just follows the letter of the law as opposed to trying to figure out the "intent" or "spirit" of the rule on their own, the rule works. If we as a collective don't do that it all goes into the toilet. It's that simple.

As to the idea of calling an intentional foul because B1 puts two quick touches on A1 when A1 beats them on a move, 4-19-3a & c are really the only rules that could be applied and both might be considered a stretch. Let's not turn simple math into calculus. If B1 wants to do that, (s)he will be able to do that a maximum of five times. My guess is B1's HC will have them sitting for a while if (s)he pulls that move more than once unless it's an end-of-game situation.

Agreed.

RSBQ comes into play on judging the first touch, not any subsequent touch.

Judgment comes in on deciding whether an arm bar is collapsed or extended, or exacly when a player has moved from a "post player" to a "ball handler" (that latter distinction is not relevant in FED).

The post player becomes a ball handler as soon as they possess the ball.

Thank you gentlemen, particularly bob since he has clarified that most of Illinois too is on the same page and that there are only a few that will do their own thing.

I think I agree with this above all else in this thread.

The guy who brought up the closely guarded idea I said earlier was a college official who also does high school. He said they were told to allow a "measure up" touch and that any other touch while closely guarded was a foul. If not closely guarded then the next touch is like a first touch.

If that is the measuring stick you want to go by let me know when you've caught up with me and we'll talk again.

Freedom Of Movement ???
 

We had our local board's annual interpretation (new rules) meeting a few nights ago. We were shown several video sequences regarding the new freedom of movement rule. They were probably IAABO produced videos. In a few sequences the defender appeared to be making "normal" hand, and arm, movements as he tried to keep up, and change directions, with the ball handler, trying to maintain his balance without falling down (i.e., when we run, we move our arms), and there were a few, what appeared to be, accidental touches (certainly not deliberate, and not seeming to effect the ball handler's balance, rhythm, speed, quickness, etc.). In all cases we were told to call these fouls. It appears that incidental contact, and advantage/disadvantage, are no longer part of the equation in regard to defending the ball handler.

Correct in FED, not correct in NCAAW, which is why I said "that latter distinction is not relevant in FED"

That's overstating it.

ad/dis is not part of the equation in regard to the "four absolutes." There's lots of "defending the ball handler" that does not involve the "four absolutes" and thus still has ad/dis.

Isn't that point whole topic of this discussion...the four absolutes? And some that are saying they're still using ad/dis or RSBQ and will not call them as absolutes.

Wasn't trying to argue, my bad.

I am not sure this statement is entirely true. In Illinois, we starting using these four absolutes last year, just like the NCAA. However, In the meetings I attended, including one conducted by the head clinician for the IHSA, we were told to call these fouls like the NCAA-M. I did not realize until this thread that there was a difference in the wording between NCAA-M and NCAA-W, and what the NFHS has put into effect this season. Remember, as I pointed out to JetMet earlier, the NCAA-M has the modifier, continually, in its wording, which is not present in the NCAA-W or the new NFHS rule. Therefore, the touches separated by time/distance would not necessarily be automatics using the NCAA-M version of the rule. Therefore, for last season at least, I would say JRut was right in his interpretation of the rule. Perhaps in Bob's area of IL, they were told different. My association will not have its meeting with the head clinician until Oct. 30th. It will be interesting to see what he says now that the NFHS wording is published and matches the NCAA-W. Until then, I will withhold judgment on whether Bob or JRut has presented how the IHSA wants this rule enforced.

First of all, Illinois has not come out with any different statement, language or interpretation about how the game is to be called this year as opposed to last year. I will say this one more time, this was already a POE specifically in Illinois (not with the NF) where they wanted us to mirror and use RSBQ and the now new NF rules language. We have not had our Video Rules Meeting published yet, which will be posted on the 28th of this month. We have not been told as clinicians anything different (and we were given information this summer to teach). Bob does not speak for what Illinois does or does not do and neither do I. I just have the ear of those based on my position and try to make sure I am sharing the same message. And there are many others that spoke openly as Rules Interpreters (who are also clinicians in every case, but are allowed to be on the video or run a meeting in certain cases) stated the same thing. And they did so with the blessing of the IHSA. At this point the information that has been given or used up until this date of October 18th, nothing has changed.

Now if you would like, I was considering going to a meeting where the Boy's basketball administrator will be speaking this weekend and I can ask him has our interpretation changed. I know he will give me an answer as he has in the past and knows who I am from my other work with the IHSA. But at this point, I really do not care what NCAA says about this issue and I work NCAA Men's games. All I know is that what was in the actual literature by the IHSA was not different than Men's basketball. And as Johnny stated, I was unaware there was any difference in Men's and Women's interpretation until I read and had conversations with a few Women's officials in our state try to make distinctions with what takes place in the post or what takes place after an initial touch.

All I know, is this conversation is as usual, entertaining, but means nothing to what we do here. If the IHSA wants this called, they will state that is the case. If that is not the case, they will not mention it at all. I do not anticipate any changes based on recent conversations. But I will report it if it has. But I doubt they are going to throw away everything they talked about last year and yes, Rhythm, Speed, Balance and Quickness were specifically referenced in the IHSA interpretation. And I had many games on video and streaming live games and if the IHSA did not like how I called the game, they could have made that clear with my assignments or sent me some information about my interpretation. Well I have one very important measure for how I called the game must be viewed by the powers that be. ;)

Peace

I also went back and looked at the Webinar from the IHSA that addressed basketball concerns they wanted addressed.

There is a PowerPoint slide in the presentation from the NF and Referee Magazine and has "Point of Emphasis" as apart of the slide and uses this sentence with three examples of Illegal Contact. This line is used below.

Here is the presentation. Look at pages 33 and 34.

NF Basketball PowerPoint 2013-2014

I love people from Missouri. ;)

Peace

Doesn't everyone know that this contact should be called? Isn't it possible that the point of this sentence was to emphasize that the new rule was not now the only contact that should be called?

I don't disagree with that. That is always true. But that isn't all the fouls we are to call.

Or, from a different angle...they're telling us that they have decided that two hands on, one hand continuously on, etc. always affect RSBQ whether you can tell it or not.

I do not know what everyone knows. I just know that what I stated was obviously more than a personal interpretation.

Booom!!!!

Peace

I don't think anyone is saying not to call contact that affects RSBQ. The point is that this thread has nothing to do with RSBQ unless one is saying that the new rule should be ignored and only contact which affect RSBQ should be called. Is that what your presentation said?

Well if you use previous literature from where this came from, RSBQ was used as the guideline for these to be called. The NCAA Men's side and John Adams specifically has been talking about this for years. I did not say ignore the rules, I said these are to be used as a guideline for when the rules have been violated. Unless something drastically changed in a year, it appears that is what the NF is saying too.

Peace

RSBQ is and always has been a guideline, even though that acronym does not appear in the books anywhere. (does it?) "....contact which hinders an opponent from performing normal maneuvers....." conveys pretty much the same message, does it not?

But something has drastically changed. Namely the addition of 10-6-12 which is obviously intended to go above and beyond that which was stated above.

Let me try this again. I never said that two hands on a ball handler was not a foul. Actually extended arms in my opinion are fouls pretty much every time when both hands are on the ball handler. I know in Illinois, it was talked about in situations where hands might touch a ball handler, but are not extended or are retreating as not fitting in these guidelines which are now rules.

Peace

.

Where the original question about the second touch via: The Rookie

Interesting, but "second touch" reference is not "two hands" in my opinion. I thought we were originally talking about a touch at one point and several feet later, we have another touch. Maybe I missed part of this debate, but that is not the same thing IMO.

Peace

RSBQ is a philosophy on how to consistently apply the written rules. I would never suggest that RSBQ is not about what is already written in the current rules. And it also considers 4-27 so that you just do not call a foul because there is contact.

Well this is NCAA 10-1-4:

While NF 10-6-12 says:

These are basically the same thing or language.

The NCAA does a better job through Rule 10-1 to describe when is or isn't a foul throughout the rest of the section.

Peace

2013-14 NFHS Basketball Rules p.68 POE 3. Guidelines to Enforce Illegal Contact. When contact occurs that affects the rhythm, speed, quickness and balance of the player, illegal contact must be called. (italic added)

To whom it may concern.

I went to a meeting tonight where the Boys Basketball Administrator was speaking. After his comments to the group, I asked him directly after the meeting about this interpretation that it appears NCAA Women's officials are stuck on. Well in Illinois, this one touch at one part of the court and another touch several feet later up the court was not considered a foul unless RSBQ was affected. He even made it clear the first touch could be a foul if RSBQ was affected, but it would not be an "automatic" if the second touch happen at a different time. And this is a person that says that we should call the game by the rules and not pick and choose. So it appears at least in Illinois, the NCAA Women's interpretation does not apply.

He even said that him and the other administrator would have to discuss the issue as I made him aware that there are NCAA Women's officials that are trying to apply interpretations to the NF rules, but it appears he does not support that position as we have talked about here.

Peace

JRut, it's not a matter of me or any other NCAAW's official "trying to apply interpretations to the NF rules." The language in the NFHS rule as it relates to the "absolutes" is the same as NCAAW's. Like it or not, any state that determines a second touch on the BH/dribbler isn't a foul won't be following the NFHS rule set.

In NCAAW the first touch can also be a foul if RSBQ is affected. I called that more than a few times in the past year in my college and GV games. But if there's a second touch it's a foul, regardless of RSBQ. Earlier you posted NCAAM 10-1-4. Here's NCAAW 10-1-4:

They're ordered differently from the NFHS rule but the criteria are the same. That's why those of us who work NCAAW have been more than a little vocal.

The rule does not say anything about a second touch with an extended period of distance and lapse as a foul. The casebook has two plays with the new rules being considered and no such interpretation. Now what do we do when there is no clear interpretation coming from the National Federation? You go to your state organization and ask them (that is what the NF says) and in my state there is no such interpretation of the rule. Sorry, but anyone trying to suggest this is a foul is taking it from another level, like Women's NCAA officials or trying to create an interpretation based off of what they "think" it should be. And unless the NF comes up with some kind of language to suggest that should be called, you are speculating their intent. All I know, is in the NF literature, there is no such interpretation. And they could clear this up by putting something in their Casebook and they did not do that in this case.


That is great, but I see nothing in that rule alone that says the second touch at a different part of the court (Significant or delayed time and distance contact) that this is a foul under NCAAW Rules. Now I am sure there was an interpretation from the NCAAW Committee or your people and that is fine, but not such comment was made on the Men's side. All videos I have seen clearly talks about these situations that are basically one after the other or immediate.

Jet, this is not my first rodeo. I have done basketball at different levels and other sports at different levels for years. NCAA often has an interpretation that does not apply to the NF level. Just because a rule has a similar language, does not mean the powers that be want the same application in every case. And now with the NCAA splitting up rules by gender, it is clear that even at that level there is not the same take of the rules even when the rules are the same. I have never seen an NCAAM's video suggesting the play we are discussing here is a foul. That was the case when the rulebooks were not separated and now you want to try to convince us that the NF who is a completely separate body all together wants only the NCAAW's interpretation? OK, go with that one. That is not very logical if you ask me. And certainly not very logical if you consider the many other differences we point out on this site between the two NCAA committees alone. Heck the NF did not even take on the NCAA language of either rule set. Now you want me to assume that NCAAW is so special that the NF only decided to use their rules? Sorry, but if they cannot do that in football and baseball, why would I believe the NF would do that in basketball?

Peace

Sooooo...just to make sure I understand this all correctly:

The NF rule says it is a foul if the defender contacts the ball handler more than once with the same hand or alternating hands.

Mr. Rutledge says he won't call that if there is some undetermined amount of time between the first touch and the second touch.

So my question is: What is that undetermined amount of time? Are you going to count the number of steps the ballhandler takes between defensive touches? 4 or fewer steps will result in a foul call, while 5 or more will result in no foul being called? Or will it be a certain number of seconds off the clock between touches?

Can you show the exact quote where I said I would not call the second touch? Or did you read me say that RSBQ would be a factor in that kind of play?

And if you have to ask all those questions, then the rule does not have a definitive answer to begin with. IJS.

Peace

Here's the problem. The 4 NFHS absolutes don't mention RSBQ, or time or distance between touches. They rule says if you do A,B,C, or D then a foul is to be called.

RSBQ is referenced with illegal contact. It is not referenced with the absolutes. But the play we are talking about, is not an absolute. None of what we are talking about applies to A, B, C or D. And all rules have an spirit or intent. Sorry, but I do not think the committee envisioned a touch 70 feet from the basket would be considered a foul if the second touch takes place 10 feet from the basket by the same player. Better yet, the wording does not even say same or different player and I doubt the interpretation or the intent of the rule was to have different players be apart of this situation.

Again you cannot say what the rules says and add to the interpretation and then get mad when others judge the interpretation of states that want to make it clear how they want to the rules to apply. The coaching box rule does not say that if a toe is outside the line you call a Technical foul either and I doubt in any situation where that takes place, you or many here are calling a T. But the rule is the rule right?

Peace

Let's see...Posts #26, 46, 49, and 83.

I am sure you are capable of going back and looking at them. After all, you are a clinician in your state.

And I don't HAVE to ask all these questions. I already understand how they want this called. I just want you to pin down your definition of when the defender touching the ballhandler a second time with the same or alternating hands IS and IS NOT a foul.

Pretty simple question...let's see if you can actually answer it.

Yes I did say I was not calling what was described because it did not fit the rule and RSBQ would be a factor. And yes, I am a State Clinician that calls a lot of handchecking type fouls. If you want to know, look on line. Just about all my playoff games last year were on video. You can look at those calls and decide for yourself.

Oh, High School Cube and the IHSA Network for my Super-Sectional. All still there. If you want the specific links, I can help you there too. ;)

I only asked questions to prove point. And it is clear that those here that did any research had the information. Remember, I was not alone in my stance. And it was clear that once again, Women's officials wanted to make their philosophies apply to the NF when the rules and philosophies are often different from each other. As I said, this was a POE in our state last year before a rule. What they wanted was beat into our head extensively before the season. And no where did a foul apply in the type of play that was being discussed. I just did. ;)

Peace

I interpret 10-6-12d as the repeated hot stove touch, not touching A1 at the 28' line in the backcourt, then again 40' up the court. Can somebody point me to where the NFHS has said they wanted called this way (2 separate touches 40' apart)? If I missed it somewhere in this thread I apologize.

Every video example I've seen regarding repeated touching has been just as you've described.

I think that may make the most sense but it isn't how the rule is currently written.

Basically, it seems they're saying they'll give a defender a mulligan for 1 touch and 1 touch only as long as it doesn't affect RSBQ but are not going to give repeated exceptions. I see it more that they simply want the hands completely off but are going to be merciful once.

Well, since several folks are telling JRut he is crazy I thought there was some sort of definitive statement from the NFHS. I've always interpreted a repeated touch as the "hot stove". This 30/40/50' thing is something I never once envisioned as an interpretation until it was brought up in this thread.

OK, so I will ask you also...what is the distance (or time lag) between touches that will constitute whether it is a foul or not?

3 steps and then it is ok to touch a second time? 8 steps?

The rule seems pretty clear.

You know, if I'm wrong I'm wrong (and I don't think I am since I've had to call the rule with the same language for the past year) but I'm just confused: How is the phrase "contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands" open for interpretation?

We say a lot about the way NFHS phrases things in the rule book but if there was a time component involved it's highly likely it would have been written into the rule. If the interpretation is to allow a defender to touch once, wait some unknown amount of time/distance, touch again, wait again and touch again what was the purpose of making 10-6-12 a rule and changing the language that had been in the PoE in years past?

How is it open for interpretation? How about spirit and intent? Repeated touching has always referred to "hot stove" touching in any discussion I have on the subject.

All of a sudden when it's convenient to an argument, are we going act like the NFHS does a great job of writing a rule in ink the same way they actually intended for it be adjudicated on the court?

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

To you, but obviously not to everyone. I have never my career ever heard that there is a problem of defenders putting their hands on a ball-handler twice or more without it being specifically targeted at "hot stove" touching. I have heard an observer/supervisor/clinician say "hey, we can't let a defender put his hand on a ball-handler once in the backcourt, and then again in the frontcourt" (or whatever distance you want to incorporate).

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

Here's the intent from the NFHS:

Quote:

Rather than continuing to make illegal contact a point of emphasis, a new criteria for foul enforcement was created. The intent is to clean up perimeter play and restore freedom of movement to the game. The new rule clearly explains specific contact that should be called a foul. This criteria should provide for more understanding of illegal contact for coaches and players, and improved enforcement by officials.

Again, when we had the language put to us last year in NCAAW there weren't a lot of warm and fuzzies about spirit and intent. The intent was to let the kids move to get more scoring so the game was better to watch and to provide uniformity in terms of enforcement since some of us (collectively) have lousy judgment. Many rules have a "spirit" component to them but if NFHS is doing this for the same reason NCAAW did - and it appears that's the case - this rule is about cold-blooded enforcement.