Two-part post requiring a two-part answer:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cloverdale
nevadaref...in one of your posts your said it was implied that we could call an intentional if the excessive contact was off ball, reading the case book I think that case could be made for this, but in your other post you said that unless it was flagrant what else could you call...please explain...
|
Sure. Rainmaker and I were having a bit of a miscommunication. She was making the point that it is good have the intentional foul as middleground between a normal personal foul and violent act which results in a flagrant (whether it is personal or technical). We agree. In my response, I was making the point that I didn't care for her use of the term T instead of flagrant since the previous discussion was about contact during a live ball (which you have now stated was not the case in your clarification). My remark about what else are you going to call was made in the context of the official observing a play that involves excessive contact during a live ball. I merely was pointing out that if the contact does not rise to the level of a flagrant foul there is no other option BESIDES intentional. Hope that does it for you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cloverdale
what actually happened on this play is as follows...close game A1 is inbounding at division line, everyone else is in f/court... Im on base watching off ball...A inbounds and about the same time I have A3 in front of me trying to shake B2, in his attempt he (imo) inadvertantly elbows B2 across the chin and displaces B2. Meantime my partner has called B1 for a hold on A2 up by the division line...we come together to confer and agree that his foul took place first...dead ball...since A was not in the bonus we charge B1 with his foul and add to team count...now we deal with this intentional because of excessive contact...now is where it might of been handled different...i ruled intentional tech (deadball) so we shot one(team camp rules score appropiate points) and gave it at D/line because of tech...after the f/t and posession to B team it had no bearing on the outcome of the game,but could have. Rereading rule 4 concening intentional foul I came away from the rule on excessive contact clearly has to be onball...read the poe didnt change my mind but the case book has an example that could support this call...if it wasnt a tech but just a simultanous personal (4-19-10) then would you disreguard this call as suggested by 4-19-1 note. I would find it hard not find something for this infraction...just read the case on simultaneous foul (4.19.9) seems to fit just right any comments on how this should of been handled? .
|
Now for your specific play.
What bothers me about the way you administered it is in red. If you truly felt that the elbow was inadvertent then I have a hard time agreeing with your decision to judge this an intentional foul. It is far more likely that it is just a common foul or even not a foul at all, but the need for game control in this situation may not allow you to have nothing for this action.
You are quite correct that a common foul would be ignored if it occurred during a dead ball and that is what you have if your partner's foul clearly happened first. So by the book, you did it right, IF the elbow contact truly warranted an intentional foul.
Personally, I would have used a shade of gray here, decided that both fouls happened at approximately the same time during the live ball, and gone with the simultaneous personal foul. Nice job looking this one up and grasping that it would be appropriate here.
Look at how the admin changes and how unobtrusive this call is versus going with the intentional technical. The SPF results in NO FTs to either team, one personal foul per player, and resuming from the POI, which is a throw-in by Team A near the division line becase that is where A2 had the ball at the time. Probably it is the same spot that A1 just had.
So essentially you put one foul up on the board for each side and administer the throw-in again. With the added benefit that you get to talk to A3 and B2 so that neither one is upset. That is what controlling the game is all about. You tell B2 something like, "yeah, I saw it and got it, so it's over now" then you let A3 know that you don't believe it was on purpose but that he needs to be more careful with his elbows/arms because he certainly wouldn't want to take one in the face either.
For what it's worth that's my advice.