During a NFHS game. After the whistle blew for a held ball, A1 throws an elbow while still to the "pile up" which occurred during the scramble for the ball. No contact occurred so only a personal Technical foul was called on A1. The possession arrow was pointing toward B's team. Does the possession arrow change? or Does B's team get the ball because of the technical and the next AP?

B gets the ball and the arrow. The AP arrow is changed when a alternating posession throw-in is completed. B gets the throw-in because of the T, not the AP arrow

The AP arrow does not change, since B did not get the ball after the held ball was whistled. No penalty or violation can deny a team from getting the AP throw-in provided that team does not violate during the throw-in. The T affects who will get the ball after the FTs, but will have no effect on the AP arrow.

Two shots and the ball to B for the T. Arrow stays to B, the T negates the AP.

Did you eject the player??

Good question Glenn...seems to me that this fits the definition of a fight according to the NF...the rule which allows you to call a T for excessively swinging elbows applies only to a live ball situation...since this was after the whistle blew, it should have resulted in an ejection...

Player ejection???
 

The player was not ejected because it was ruled an intentional technical foul. There was not "extreme or persistant" conduct or there was not any retaliation which warrants disqualification for fighting.

Re: Player ejection???
 

In your original post you said the foul was a "personal technical foul", now you say it was an "intentional technical foul".

Actually, there is no such thing as an "intentional technical foul". Yes - I know the NF rulebook says a technical foul "may be intentional" but that does not mean there is an actual structured foul of that sort. It just means that you can have a technical foul whether or not the action was intentional.

A technical foul may also be flagrant, however, which carries an automatic ejection.

I agree with you that swinging an elbow is not always the same as excessive swinging of elbows (after a rebound, for instance). It seems like you ruled that a technical by itself was sufficient punishment without an ejection.

From your description of the act, I would agree.

I had one of these last year but the elbow connected. It was just a reaction to several hands trying to take the ball away. The ballhandler got frustrated and threw an elbow after the foul was called. The kid he nailed had a gash over the eye. No choice but to eject him.

Brian-- Can you cite chapter and verse on this?

Also, what would happen if there was a held ball so close to the end of the quarter that time ran out before it could be administered?

I'm not Brian but here it is.

6-3-4,5
ART. 4 The direction of the possession arrow is reversed immediately after an alternating-possession throw-in ends. An alternating-possession throw-in ends when the throw-in ends or when the throw-in team violates.

ART. 5 The opportunity to make an alternating-possession throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. If either team fouls during an alternating-possession throw-in, it does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrow.

6-3-5 also means that the arrow is not changed if the foul occurs before the throw-in begins.

Quote:

Also, what would happen if there was a held ball so close to the end of the quarter that time ran out before it could be administered?

It doesn't matter. You do not change the AP arrow until after the throw-in is completed unless Team A violates. If the team that has the arrow doesn't get an opportunity to make the throw-in, then they get the throw-in to start the next quarter.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Dec 2nd, 2000 at 10:54 AM]

BBRef,

Thanks for hetting my back, I left my books at hme today.

Rainmaker, any foul before an AP is complete ends the process without an arrow change.