Fun With Multiple Illegal Contacts …
 

What is correct ruling on this multiple contact situation? As the whistle is being blown to charge Black #3 with a handchecking foul, White #24 hits Black #3 above the shoulders with an elbow. Black #3 retaliates by pushing White #24 and batting the ball away.

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

How should this activity be ruled?
A) Personal Foul on Black #3: Rule on the handchecking foul, separate players and assess no further penalty.
B) Double Personal Foul: Charge both Black #3 and White #24 with a personal foul as both fouls occurred at the same time. Ignore dead ball contact by Black #3.
C) Double Personal Foul: Charge Black #3 with a personal foul and White #24 with an intentional personal foul. Ignore dead ball contact by Black #3.
D) Double Personal Foul and a Technical Foul: Charge Black #3 with a personal foul and White #24 with an intentional personal foul that occurs at approximately the same time. Then charge Black #3 with an Intentional Technical foul for dead ball contact.
E) One Personal Foul and Two Technical Fouls: Charge Black #3 with personal foul

Five choices (don’t fully align with choices above): Personal Foul on Black #3; Double Personal Foul; One Personal Foul and One Double Technical Foul; Double Personal Foul and a Technical Foul; One Personal Foul and Two Technical Fouls.

My comment: One Personal Foul and Two Technical Fouls. Charge Black #3 with personal foul. Contact after the ball has become dead is incidental unless it is ruled intentional. An elbow in excessive movement should be an intentional foul (or possibly a flagrant foul).

Thoughts?

Double Foul ???
 

What if the hand check and the elbow occurred at exactly the same time, instead of approximately the same time?

It's this a real option by rule?

Double Personal Foul and a Technical Foul: Charge Black #3 with a personal foul and White #24 with an intentional personal foul that occurs at approximately the same time. Then charge Black #3 with an Intentional Technical foul for dead ball contact.

A double personal foul means no free throws and point of interruption. But what if one foul had been ruled an intentional foul (moving elbow to the head)?

Don't we always have to shoot free throws on intentional fouls?

Wouldn't this (exactly the same time, one being ruled an intentional foul) be better described as a false double foul (fouls by both teams and one of the attributes of a double foul (same penalties) is absent)?

So my question is: What if two opponents foul each other at exactly the same time (didn't happen in the video) and one of the two fouls is an intentional foul? Absent the subsequent technical foul in this video, how would we penalize two opponents fouling each other at exactly the same time with one of the two fouls ruled as an intentional foul: free throws, or no free throws; ball to offended (intentionally fouled) team, or point of interruption? Absent the subsequent technical foul in this video, is this (exactly the same time) a double foul situation, or a false double foul situation?

I'm calling a personal foul on Black and then a technical foul, very close to a flagrant technical foul, on White.

I'm not calling a technical foul on black after he gets elbowed in the face for knocking the ball out of the white player's hand.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Call the foul on black for holding the jersey and none of the rest of this happens.

My sentiments exactly.

Peace

Possible Intentional Foul Jersey Grab ...
 

Good point. Agree. I missed the possible intentional foul jersey grab the first time through. But it was missed and we need to adjudicate what actually did happen.

I am not calling that an intentional foul either. Just call a foul and move on. Why do guys want to make everything intentional, he is trying to defend he just grabs the jersey. All jersey pulls are not intentional fouls. No more than if he grabbed his arm IMO.

Peace

Grabbing A Handful Of Jersey ...
 

I respect your opinion. When in Rome ...

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, grabbing a handful of jersey (or a bear hug, or a push from behind) anytime, but especially away from the ball, is not considered a basketball play and is usually (if not automatically) considered to be an intentional foul.

Fun With Multiple Illegal Contacts …
 

The preventative officiating stunk here. While we’re not sure of the time in the 4th period, the “announcers” were talking about black needing to give two more fouls. So if they could tell what was going on, why couldn’t the crew? There are times for calling the touch foul when the offending team clearly wants that call. This was one of those times. On top of that, if the calling official senses the brewing animosity and runs toward the players, it probably prevents the ball shove.

That commentary notwithstanding, I think option D) is correct by rule given what actually occurred. I’ve got a DF (with one element being intentional*) followed by the unsporting T on black.

* In NFHS, there are still no FTs when part of a DF is of higher severity. NCAA (I think both M and W) call for the penalty assessment to proceed as if the lesser foul had not occurred (even though it is still charged). But no such rule in NFHS; it’s just POI.

Reasonable officials could disagree here on DF vs. FDF. For example, I like Raymond’s FDF solution and then ignore the ball shove. The end result seems the most just in that case: Black gets White closer to the bonus as they wanted, but first Black will shoot two and get the ball for White’s buffoonery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ball Handler Doesn't Get Hit Harder To Draw A Whistle ...
 

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1041317

Agree. From my pregame:

Near the end of the game, be aware of coaches requesting timeouts and be sure to inform them after they have used all their time outs. Near the end of the game, give the defense a chance to steal the ball before a quick whistle. When team is trying to foul, call foul immediately when contact occurs so the ball handler doesn't get hit harder to draw a whistle. Let’s make sure there is a play on the ball by the defense. If there’s no play on the ball, if the defense grabs the jersey, pushes from behind, or bear hugs the offensive player, we should consider an intentional foul.

Double Foul Questions ...
 

These are questions, not answers (because I don't have any answers).

A double personal foul means no free throws and point of interruption. But what if one foul had been ruled an intentional foul? Don't we always have to shoot free throws on intentional fouls? Wouldn't this be better described as a false double foul (fouls by both teams and one of the attributes of a double foul (same penalties) is absent)?

What if two opponents foul each other at exactly the same time and only one of the two fouls is an intentional foul? How would we penalize two opponents fouling each other at exactly the same time with only one of the two fouls (same exact time) ruled as an intentional foul: free throws, or no free throws; ball to offended (intentionally fouled) team, or point of interruption?

Hey crosscountry55, not disagreeing, sounds reasonable, and I don't have an opposing citation, but is there a citation for this (your post immediately above) if two opponents foul each other at exactly the same time and only one of the two fouls is an intentional foul)?

Now a double foul, exactly the same time, both are intentional, must (maybe) be a double foul (no free throws, point of interruption), otherwise in what order would one shoot free throws? Maybe this is the rationale to use to decide that even if only one of the two fouls is intentional, it's still a double foul (no free throws, point of interruption).

Of course it's all academic. In the video, the whistled live ball handcheck foul clearly preceded (not at the same time) the dead ball intentional elbow foul.

Fun With Multiple Illegal Contacts …
 

Implied from Rule 10 PENALTIES:

Rule 10 Penalties Summary

1. No free throws:
…
c. For double personal or technical fouls (point of interruption).
…
NOTE: If one or both fouls of a double foul are flagrant, no free throws are awarded. Any player who commits a flagrant foul is disqualified.

We had a discussion on this forum a few years ago and the consensus was that intentional fouls were also understood to be included in this, though the language could be more clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Implication ...
 

Great citation crosscountry55. Thanks.

4-19-8-A: A foul is an infraction of the rules which is charged and is penalized. Double fouls: A double personal foul is a situation in which two opponents commit personal fouls against each other at approximately the same time.

Rule 10 Penalties Summary 1-C: No free throws: For double personal or technical fouls (point of interruption).
NOTE: If one or both fouls of a double foul are flagrant, no free throws are awarded.

Agree that it could be more clear, but the implication works for me.

I believe that we have the answer: Double foul (not a false double). No free throws (not two free throws, even though we have an intentional foul). Point of interruption (not to offended intentionally fouled team, even though we have an intentional foul).

I was headed down the right path, got it into the red zone, but couldn't come up with the coup de grâce across the finish line.

Not sure how this is away from the ball when the very people involved with the ball is going to that area? And this is not about what corner you live in, I think this is apart of the play, and yes it is a jersey grab, but if that is the case, all jersey grabs are fouls or any hold where players are trying to get to a position. I think this play in particular is not one of those situations that warrants an intentional foul. That is an opinion that is based on experience and judgment, nothing else.

Peace

Agree. This is not a play where a player reached out and grabbed his opponent's jersey as he was breaking away. He was already holding on to the jersey. If anything we need to do a better job of calling the hold immediately while they are at close quarters.

This action often begins before the ball is at the disposal of the thrower-in (though not on this play), and I have plenty of times addressed those players before the ball became live.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

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