Not Automatic (The Pointer Sisters, 1983) ...
 

Didn't review the full text of the rule: Contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved with a play.

Reviewed the video again. Not an automatic intentional. Would consider it, but would probably come up with a common holding foul.

http://www.ducksters.com/sports/bask...ul_holding.jpg

IAABO International Play Commentary ...
 

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...3ha1XCenJH.mp4

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: One Personal Foul and Two Technical Fouls

The Trail official is ruling a handchecking foul on Black #3 when the ball handler (White #24) pivots and contacts Black #3 above the shoulders with his elbow. The Trail official does a good job recognizing the situation and quickly reacts to separate the players to avoid further issues and a possible fighting situation. (4-18) So the question becomes, do these fouls happen at approximately the same time? For those who have responded to this question, as well as the IAABO Co-coordinators, the answer is pretty well split down the middle.

Let’s review the two possibilities for assessing a penalty on this play.

Option #1: Double Foul & Technical Foul
Charge a Double foul: Charge a personal foul to Black #3 and an intentional foul to White #24 as the fouls do happen at approximately the same time. Despite the different disparity of these fouls, no free throws will be awarded due to this being treated as a double foul.
Charge Black #3 with an Intentional Technical Foul: The team in the white jerseys should be awarded two free throws with the lane cleared. Then Team A will be awarded the ball at the division line opposite the scorer’s table.

Why is contact by White #24 considered Intentional?
The current NFHS interpretation for contact above the shoulders stipulates that if a player moves his/her elbows faster than the torso is rotating in a normal pivot, at a minimum, the contact should be ruled an intentional foul. (2012-13 NFHS POE) In this play, the ball handler’s elbow is moving faster than the rest of his torso, which by this interpretation will need to be penalized with an intentional foul. Since the ruling is a double foul, the fouls would be considered to have occurred during a live ball, which will result in an intentional personal foul being charred to White #24.

Option #2: Personal Foul & Two Technical Fouls
The ball becomes dead when the whistle blows for the handchecking foul. Since the ball was dead when the elbow contact committed by the ball handler occurred, can this contact be ignored? Contact after the ball has become dead is incidental unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant. (4-19-1 note) Since the contact by the ball handler must be ruled intentional (by NFHS interpretation), and it occurred during a dead ball, an intentional technical foul must be charged to White #24. In reaction to this contact, Black #3 pushes his opponent and bats the ball away. This also would be considered an intentional technical foul.

Because none of the fouls are considered to have occurred at approximately the same time, each foul needs to be penalized in the order in which it occurred. (8-6)
The Penalties:
1. Charge Black #3 with a Personal foul: White #24 will be entitled to free throws if the bonus rule was in effect when this foul was charged. If this foul occurs before the 7th foul of the half, no free throws will be awarded. If the technical foul committed by Black #3 is the 7th foul of the half, it will not entitle White #24 to bonus free throws for the personal foul. If the Technical foul assessed to White #24 is his 5th foul. White#24 would be disqualified, and his substitute would attempt the free throws.
2. Charge White #24 with an Intentional Technical Foul: The team in the black jerseys should be awarded two free throws with the lane cleared.
3. Charge Black #3 with an Intentional Technical Foul: The team in the white jerseys should be awarded two free throws with the lane cleared. Then Team A will be awarded the ball at the division line opposite the scorer’s table.

Final Thought:When situations like this occur, the crew’s priority is to diffuse the situation and prevent it from escalating. Once things are settled, the crew should get together and make the necessary decisions to assess the proper penalties. The key to this play was to decide how to treat the initial contact between the two opponents. Once that decision is made, it will determine which of these two options is needed to assess the proper penalties.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: One Personal Foul and Two Technical Fouls 35% (me included); Double Personal Foul and a Technical Foul 30%; One Personal Foul and One Double Technical Foul 25%; Double Personal Foul 6%; Personal Foul on Black #3 5%.

Higher Severity ...
 

crosscountry55 nailed it.

Elbows Moving, But Not Faster Than Torso Rotating ...
 

Reminder: Even if the player was not moving his elbows faster than the torso is rotating, if the elbows were just moving, it would still be an intentional foul (but probably not a flagrant foul).

2012-13 Points Of Emphasis Contact Above The Shoulders
Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties.
An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.

Of course, how is a seven (or fewer) year experienced veteran basketball official supposed to know this?

Stupid NFHS.

Everyone was trying that type of ruling about that time. The other leagues all explicitly backed away from that as it led to some absurd foul calls that were correct by the PoE's but absolutely silly in principle. For example, the NCAA later changed to looking at whether the movement was a basketball move, considering more up and over vs out and around, to determine F1 or common. They settled in the right place in my mind.

Some believed the NFHS interpretation at that time for movement was that it was movement of the elbows independent of the torso and independent of normal body movements. That is what our state was doing.

The NFHS has been silent on the topic since then, but I believe most people have settled somewhere closer to the NCAA's current interpretation.

Current ...
 

The IAABO International "Gang of Four" co-interpreters are calling it "current".

How can one call an eight year old point of emphasis that hasn't been updated (or even mentioned) in eight years, and can't be found anywhere in the current rulebook and/or casebook, be called "current"?

Does the word "current" imply that a change is about to happen?

Not blaming the four co-interpreters, they can only work with the tools that the NFHS gives them.

Stupid NFHS.

My state never wanted us to call it automatically, but to consider the actions of the player similar to the NCAA interpretation is today. And just like the NF, the IHSA at least has said almost nothing about this kind of play. Just emphasizing we have rules in place to consider these just like any other play. Again many of us never work for IAABO so I cannot comment on what they believe. I will say they have not mentioned this in any of their videos at least recently. So not sure they are taking a hard line here either.

Peace

Noticeably Absent ...
 

Pretty difficult to take a "hard line" on something that has been barely discussed at the IAABO local (my little corner), state (Connecticut), or international level in the eight years since the NFHS point of emphasis was first publicized (that is, up until this recent video play commentary). While IAABO, on the local, state, and international level, has quite often discussed intentional fouls, the mention of intentional fouls involving contact above the shoulders has been noticeably minimal, almost as if forgotten.

And keeping in mind the turnover rate of basketball officials, a large percentage of IAABO members (and probably about the same percentage of basketball officials who are not IAABO members) have probably never heard of this eight year old NFHS point of emphasis.

Again, I'm not blaming IAABO, they can only work with the tools that the NFHS gives them, and at least, presently, IAABO tries to stay in its lane.

Stupid NFHS.

Stationary Elbow ...
 

I did find this:

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1041036

Why did the IAABO International "Gang of Four" co-interpreters believe that stationary is the same as moving but not excessively moving?

IAABO International "Gang of Four" co-interpreters: A stationary elbow is defined as an elbow that is not moving faster than the rest of the player’s torso.

Funk and Wagnalls Dictionery: Stationary: Fixed in a station, course, or mode; immobile.

NFHS: Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul. An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul. A moving elbow that is excessive can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.L...=0&w=179&h=168

“Option #2: Personal Foul & Two Technical Fouls
The ball becomes dead when the whistle blows for the handchecking foul.” - IAABO ruling.

Nope that’s not accurate. Care to try again?

Whistle While You Work (Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs, 1937) ...
 

Actually, that’s 6-7

Dead Or Alive ...
 

Fixed it. Thanks.

In this video play, the ball becomes dead when the illegal contact (handcheck) occurs.

In what situations does the ball become dead on the sounding of an official's whistle?

Time out granted whistle? Inadvertent whistle? If so, anything else?

A whistle blow to address a correctable error, a safety issue, etc.

Red Hot Riding Hood (1943) ...
 

A wolf whistle directed at a hot single Mom?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ng_Hood_WP.jpg