Jump Ball rules help
 

NFHS

At a small, local clinic last night our clinician stated that "when a jump ball is tipped out of bounds untouched by any other player, the jump ball is redone".

I have searched the rule book and cannot find a specific rule (other than if BOTH jumpers simultaneously tip the ball- 9.6 p59) that applies.

Thanks

Time to elect a new rules interpreter.

Or, being generous, he meant to imply the ball was tipped by both jumpers.

An Archaic Forgettable Anachronistic Formality ...
 

Agree with Raymond. Poorly worded.

Jump ball simultaneously tipped/tapped by both jumpers directly (no touch by nonjumpers) out of bounds. Leave the clock alone (time should have ticked down a little after legal touch). New jump ball between same two jumpers.

Alternate ...
 

Only jumper A1 tips/taps tossed ball directly (no touch by nonjumpers) out of bounds. Out of bounds off of A1. Team B gets the ball for inbounds pass where the ball went out of bounds. Next alternating possession goes to Team A.

No Arrow ...
 

Jump ball tipped/tapped by both jumpers, A1 and B1 (doesn't matter who tipped/tapped first or second). Two nonjumpers, A2 and B2, simultaneously touch the ball (no player control, no possession) before it goes out of bounds. New jump ball between A2 and B2.

If it wasn't simultaneously touched by both teams, the team that did not tip the ball out of bounds gets possession. The opponent gets the alternating possession arrow.

Well dont be shocked. Our state interpreter doesnt know that the elbow contact intentional/flagrant "rule" doesnt exist in the rule book/case book.

One And Done ...
 

I believe that SNIPERBBB is correct.

Contact Above The Shoulders only appeared as a "one and done" Point Of Emphasis, and except for a minor rule change, never fully appeared in the rulebook and/or casebook.

2012-13 Points Of Emphasis Contact Above The Shoulders
With a continued emphasis on reducing concussions and decreasing excessive contact situations the committee determined that more guidance is needed for penalizing contact above the shoulders. A player shall not swing his/her arm(s) or elbow(s) even without contacting an opponent. Excessive swinging of the elbows occurs when arms and elbows are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arms and elbows is in excess of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot.
Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties.
1. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2. An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3. A moving elbow that is excessive can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

While I personally believe that the "specifics" of this Point Of Emphasis are still valid, how is an official with less than ten years of experience suppose to know these parameters?

Here's the rule change (two years later).

2014-15 NFHS Basketball Rules Changes
4-19-3-D: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to: Excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live or until an airborne shooter returns to the floor.

Here's the rationale behind the rule change.

The rules committee also expanded the definition of an intentional foul in Rule 4-19-3d, which now states that an intentional foul is “excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live or until an airborne shooter returns to the floor.” ... this revision will address the issue of contact with the elbow and should reduce the subjectivity in making rulings on intentional fouls.

Personally, while I believe that the 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Point Of Emphasis is still valid (especially for experienced veterans that were around ten years ago), I don't believe that the 2014-15 NFHS Basketball Rules Change went far enough to explain the "specifics" of the Contact Above The Shoulders parameters, especially for officials with less than ten years of experience.

Of course, those experienced enough to be appointed/elected as interpreters/trainers should be "aware" of the "specifics" of the Contact Above The Shoulders parameters, and teach such to all officials, both experienced and inexperienced. However the lack of these specific parameters permanently ensconced in the rulebook and/or casebook could lead to the purpose and intent of this Point Of Emphasis "falling through the cracks".

Casebook Plays ...
 

I now believe that I, and SNIPERBBB were partially wrong. There are casebook plays regarding Contact Above The Shoulders,

4.19.3 SITUATION F: After a rebound, A1, while holding the ball, pivots and A1’s elbow contacts B1 above the shoulders. A1's elbow is violently and excessively swung at a speed in excess of the player’s torso. RULING: If the contact is violent or excessive, a flagrant foul shall be called. (4-27, 4-19-2, 4-19-3, 4-19-4)

9.13.1 SITUATION B: A1 is trapped in the corner by B1 and B2, who are in legal guarding position. In an attempt to create space, A1 rapidly swings arms/elbows while using the shoulders as pivots (a) without making contact; (b) making contact with an opponent above the shoulders and elbows are moving faster than the body. RULING: In (a), A1 excessively swinging arms/elbows without contacting the opponent is a violation. Team B is awarded a designated spot throw-in nearest the violation. In (b), this is considered an intentional foul. (9-13-1)

9.13.2 SITUATION: A5 catches the ball on a rebound, “chins” the ball and then turns (with the elbow at the same speed as the body) to make an outlet pass with the elbow leading the way. Prior to releasing the ball, A1’s elbow contacts B5 above the shoulders. RULING: This may be ruled incidental contact or a player control foul.

I don't think those case plays were pointed out at all in in the state meetings this year or last. And technically still not in the Rules

They Exist ...
 

But the three caseplays still exist, even if not "pointed out".

These three caseplays combined with the new language in 4-19-3-D should suffice.

But I would still like to see more "specifics" in the rulebook.