Think I missed one....

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

Black 21 gets a def rebound. White 20 is now playing defense on the rebounding action and fouls. As I am going up with the fist and calling foul on W20, B21 swings elbow and contacts W20, above the shoulders . I totally dropped the proverbial ball and didn't call anything, just staying with the foul on W20. It was late in the game and as soon as we were done, I noted to my partner (a fairly new guy) that I missed it. My thought is I missed a false double, with the 2nd foul by B21 being intentional. And I'm pretty ticked I swallowed on the 2nd foul.
Your thoughts?

Was it an intentional swing of the elbow? Obviously, if it's within the flow of play as you're calling the foul (if that makes sense) you have nothing. But if you feel it's intentional contact while the ball is dead, then yes, you should have called the tech (or flagrant).

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by bas2456

Was it an intentional swing of the elbow? Obviously, if it's within the flow of play as you're calling the foul (if that makes sense) you have nothing. But if you feel it's intentional contact while the ball is dead, then yes, you should have called the tech (or flagrant).

I think I'm going to disagree here... Swinging elbow that makes contact above the shoulders has to be called. Makes no difference if it is intentional act for not. Its going to be two shots and the ball. The only thing that's left is to determine if player is ejected.

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

I think I'm going to disagree here... Swinging elbow that makes contact above the shoulders has to be called. Makes no difference if it is intentional act for not. Its going to be two shots and the ball. The only thing that's left is to determine if player is ejected.

If the ball is live, sure. But if the ball is dead because the first foul has already been called, I'm not sure it's automatic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by bas2456

If the ball is live, sure. But if the ball is dead because the first foul has already been called, I'm not sure it's automatic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Elbow to head ... Live or dead has to be called...if you don't... There are upset coaches, retaliation, etc.

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

Elbow to head ... Live or dead has to be called...if you don't... There are upset coaches, retaliation, etc.

Rule 10-4-7 (Player Technical) says a player should be charged with a technical if "intentionally or flagrantly contacting an opponent when the ball is dead and such contact is not a personal foul."

Obviously, if the contact is deemed to be either intentional or flagrant, address it accordingly.

My point is that I don't think the situation is absolute. If you would only call a player control foul if the ball were live, I wouldn't have a problem not calling a technical foul.

I understand I may be in the minority, and I understand that the "safe" thing to do would be to call the technical, but I'd better see clear intent if I'm hitting a kid with a dead ball contact technical.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by bas2456

Rule 10-4-7 (Player Technical) says a player should be charged with a technical if "intentionally or flagrantly contacting an opponent when the ball is dead and such contact is not a personal foul."

Obviously, if the contact is deemed to be either intentional or flagrant, address it accordingly.

My point is that I don't think the situation is absolute. If you would only call a player control foul if the ball were live, I wouldn't have a problem not calling a technical foul.

I understand I may be in the minority, and I understand that the "safe" thing to do would be to call the technical, but I'd better see clear intent if I'm hitting a kid with a dead ball contact technical.

It's not the minority, it's flat out wrong. It has been stressed that elbow contact to the head IS a foul. Common/technical/flagrant. Therefore it cannot be ignored simply because the ball is dead. It has nothing to do with "safe". It has to do with expectations of the job. IF there is intent its a flagrant and not a technical.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by deecee

It's not the minority, it's flat out wrong. It has been stressed that elbow contact to the head IS a foul. Common/technical/flagrant. Therefore it cannot be ignored simply because the ball is dead. It has nothing to do with "safe". It has to do with expectations of the job. IF there is intent its a flagrant and not a technical.

Common / Intentional / Flagrant. Whether Personal or Technical. (Recognizing that "common Technical" is not really a defined term -- but it should be. )

If the ball is live, it's a flagrant personal. If the ball is dead, it's a flagrant Technical.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

It's not the minority, it's flat out wrong. It has been stressed that elbow contact to the head IS a foul. Common/technical/flagrant. Therefore it cannot be ignored simply because the ball is dead. It has nothing to do with "safe". It has to do with expectations of the job. IF there is intent its a flagrant and not a technical.

If it is deemed common, it can and should be ignored if the ball is dead.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

I think I'm going to disagree here... Swinging elbow that makes contact above the shoulders has to be called. Makes no difference if it is intentional act for not. Its going to be two shots and the ball. The only thing that's left is to determine if player is ejected.

Elbow contact to the head cannot be ignored. If a foul has already been called then the only option is a Technical foul (you could have a flagrant, but its a you have to be there to make the distinction).

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bas2456

you should have called the tech (or flagrant).

Could be both.