The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Elbows Rule Redux (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/22346-elbows-rule-redux.html)

Jurassic Referee Thu Sep 29, 2005 03:38pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust
4-18 FIGHTING
Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur <FONT COLOR=BLUE>when the ball is dead or live</FONT>.

10-3 <FONT COLOR=BLUE>PLAYER TECHNICAL</FONT>
A player shall not:
ART. 10 . . . <FONT COLOR=BLUE>Be charged with fighting</FONT>.

We've had this discussion before, Camron. I was totally on your side on this. But I seem to remember that there was an argument on the other side that fighting could also be personal, instead of technical. Since that discussion, I've always considered live-ball fighting to be a personal foul; but now I can't remember exactly why. . . :confused:

Lemme refresh your memory....

Casebook play 10.4.5SitA---live ball fight... <b>RULING:</b> <i>A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant fouls and are disqualified, but no free throws result from the double PERSONAL foul</i>

Mregor Thu Sep 29, 2005 08:09pm

Actual Rules Reference
 
The actual reference is from the 2002-3 rules book when the violation for excessively swinging the elbows was changed back from a tech to a violation. Under points of emphasis 4E. on page 68-9 it states:
Excess Swinging of Arm(s)/Elbow(s)
-When there is no contact with an opponenet is now a violation.
-If contact is made, the official must judge the severity of the act and possible even determine intent.
-A player control foul, an intentional foul, or a flagrant foul may be called.

Further, in the Comments on the 2002-02 Rules Revisions it states:
Penaly Changed for Excess Swinging of Arm(s)/Elbow(s) 9-13
The penalty for excess swingin of the arms or elbows has been changed back to a violation for a technical foul.....If a player makes contact with an opponent while excessively swinging the arms/elbows, the official still has several options: a player control foul, an intentional foul, or a flagrant foul. The specific call should be determined by the severity of the act and player intent (based on official's judgment).

Those are the options "by the book".

Mregor

Just so happened, that the 2002-3 manual is the old one I have lying in my computer desk. No attic diggin involved.

Camron Rust Fri Sep 30, 2005 02:14am

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust
4-18 FIGHTING
Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur <FONT COLOR=BLUE>when the ball is dead or live</FONT>.

10-3 <FONT COLOR=BLUE>PLAYER TECHNICAL</FONT>
A player shall not:
ART. 10 . . . <FONT COLOR=BLUE>Be charged with fighting</FONT>.

We've had this discussion before, Camron. I was totally on your side on this. But I seem to remember that there was an argument on the other side that fighting could also be personal, instead of technical. Since that discussion, I've always considered live-ball fighting to be a personal foul; but now I can't remember exactly why. . . :confused:

Lemme refresh your memory....

Casebook play 10.4.5SitA---live ball fight... <b>RULING:</b> <i>A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant fouls and are disqualified, but no free throws result from the double PERSONAL foul</i>

How do you reconcile the direct contradition in the definition of a fight and technical foul with the case book? They're both valid and and clear. There is no ambiguity in the rule. One is probably a misprint. Which? I can't say for sure. I don't think you can either.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:03pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1