The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 11:24am
rfp rfp is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 98
Question Thrown Elbow - Live Ball vs. Dead Ball

Just so I'm clear, an unsportsmanlike thrown elbow will be called differently depending on whether the ball is live or dead?

For example, players A1 and B1 are fighting for a held ball between them. Either a) before the held ball whistle is blown or b) after the held ball whistle is blown, player A1 throws a non-flagrant elbow that connects with B1's torso.

In a), since the ball is live, a technical foul cannot be called. If it is non-flagrant, the only choice left is an intentional foul

In b), since the ball is dead, I can have an unsportsmanlike technical foul called.

Is that right? Seems like the same infraction one second before or after the whistle causes a different call to be made.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 11:44am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfp
Just so I'm clear, an unsportsmanlike thrown elbow will be called differently depending on whether the ball is live or dead?

For example, players A1 and B1 are fighting for a held ball between them. Either a) before the held ball whistle is blown or b) after the held ball whistle is blown, player A1 throws a non-flagrant elbow that connects with B1's torso.

In a), since the ball is live, a technical foul cannot be called. If it is non-flagrant, the only choice left is an intentional foul

In b), since the ball is dead, I can have an unsportsmanlike technical foul called.

Is that right? Seems like the same infraction one second before or after the whistle causes a different call to be made.
No, in both situations.

a) No, it can't be a T unless it's the beginning of a fight. But an intentional foul is not the "only choice." It could easily be just a common foul.

b) It's an intentional technical foul, not an unsporting technical foul. Unsporting = non-contact, intentional T = contact.

As for your whistle issue, if there's no contact, there isn't going to be a whistle. If a foul does occur and a whistle sounds, then yes it's a T.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith

Last edited by BktBallRef; Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 11:48am.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 12:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 9,104
Send a message via AIM to ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfp
Just so I'm clear, an unsportsmanlike thrown elbow will be called differently depending on whether the ball is live or dead?
I know I'm picking nits, but in the rulebook, there's no such thing as an unsportsmanlike foul. It's an unsporting foul; and unsporting fouls are always non-contact by definition (4-19-14).

So to answer your question: no, an unsporting foul will not be called differently depending the status of the ball. Unsporting fouls are always technical in nature. If he swings the elbow intentionally and misses, then you could have an unsporting foul (probably flagrant since it's an attempt to strike an opponent).

If he swings the elbow and connects, now it could be personal (live ball) or technical (dead ball). Whether it's a common, intentional or flagrant foul will be up to the official's judgment.
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 12:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Lakewood, Ohio
Posts: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckElias
I If he swings the elbow intentionally and misses, then you could have an unsporting foul (probably flagrant since it's an attempt to strike an opponent).
I wouldn't make it flagrant unless the foul does cause injury because it was not violent or savage. {4-19-4} However, some officials would use the next sentence in that citation: A technical non-contact foul which displays unacceptable behavior.

Ejecting the player for a swung and missed elbow would be an extreme measure IMHO. Since the ejection would cause him/her to miss the next two games, there should probably be some other mitigating issues before I would take that action (and in Ohio, cause me to do paperwork ). Is this a game that has a history of trouble? Do these teams have a history of this kind of action, or is it an isolated incident? This would be, as many things are, a game management issue.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 12:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
As for your whistle issue, if there's no contact, there isn't going to be a whistle. If a foul does occur and a whistle sounds, then yes it's a T.
This doesn't apply to the OP. In that case, there would be a whistle even if there was no contact, because there was a held ball. The question has to do with the relationship between the whistle for the held ball, and the contact. If the contact occured before the held-ball whistle, then the foul called ofr that contact is either an intentional personal or a common foul. If the contact is after the whistle, it's a technical foul. Right?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 12:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Lakewood, Ohio
Posts: 710
I would agree with that assessment Rainmaker.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 12:31pm
M.A.S.H.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignats75
Ejecting the player for a swung and missed elbow would be an extreme measure IMHO.
In your honest opinion, the NFHS would agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignats75
Since the ejection would cause him/her to miss the next two games, there should probably be some other mitigating issues before I would take that action (and in Ohio, cause me to do paperwork ).
See local details. In my state, the ejection would cause a one game suspension.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignats75
Is this a game that has a history of trouble? Do these teams have a history of this kind of action, or is it an isolated incident? This would be, as many things are, a game management issue.
Items like these are things that should have been discussed in your pre-game.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 12:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignats75
I wouldn't make it flagrant unless the foul does cause injury because it was not violent or savage.
I agree with your post mostly, I wouldn't go looking for an ejection,but there are game situations where I might call tthis flagrant for game management sakes. I can see a situation where you've have a bunch of ugly, hard fouls, players obviously getting upset with each other and such. In this case I may go flagrant just to keep anything really major from happnening. I just don't think you can use a blanket statement on this one. Strange things can happen in games.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 12:59pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignats75
I wouldn't make it flagrant unless the foul does cause injury because it was not violent or savage. {4-19-4} However, some officials would use the next sentence in that citation: A technical non-contact foul which displays unacceptable behavior.

Ejecting the player for a swung and missed elbow would be an extreme measure IMHO.
The rule that Chuck was referring to is rule 4-18. Article 1 says that you can have a flagrant foul if it's an attempt to strike an opponent regardless of whether contact is made or not. Article 2 says that if the missed elbow leads to retaliation by fighting, the missed elbow is regarded as a flagrant act for instigating the fight.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 01:16pm
rfp rfp is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef

a) No, it can't be a T unless it's the beginning of a fight.
A thrown elbow couldn't be the beginning of a fight? Of course it could, which is why the official jumps in immediately with an intentional-personal or unsporting technical foul depending on the time of the foul relative to the whistle.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 01:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainmaker
This doesn't apply to the OP. In that case, there would be a whistle even if there was no contact, because there was a held ball. The question has to do with the relationship between the whistle for the held ball, and the contact. If the contact occured before the held-ball whistle, then the foul called ofr that contact is either an intentional personal or a common foul. If the contact is after the whistle, it's a technical foul. Right?
I was speaking in general terms, with regard to his statement, "Seems like the same infraction one second before or after the whistle causes a different call to be made."
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 01:25pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfp
A thrown elbow couldn't be the beginning of a fight? Of course it could, which is why the official jumps in immediately with an intentional-personal or unsporting technical foul depending on the time of the foul relative to the whistle.
Yes, it could be the beginning of a fight. But it couldn't ever be a technical foul of some kind, as you say. There was live-ball contact on the play. That has to be a personal foul of some type, as per rule 4-19-1. It happened before the whistle blew. Technical fouls during a live ball have to be non-contact fouls, as per rule 4-19-5. Iow, BktBallRef was completely correct.

Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 01:27pm.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 01:44pm
rfp rfp is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Yes, it could be the beginning of a fight. But it couldn't ever be a technical foul of some kind, as you say. There was live-ball contact on the play. That has to be a personal foul of some type, as per rule 4-19-1. It happened before the whistle blew. Technical fouls during a live ball have to be non-contact fouls, as per rule 4-19-5. Iow, BktBallRef was completely correct.
I understand. The only part of BktBallRef's response I disagree with is his comment that it couldn't be a T unless it's the beginning of a fight. As long as the ball was live when the contact started, it sounds like it can never be a T.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 01:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 9,104
Send a message via AIM to ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignats75
I wouldn't make it flagrant unless the foul does cause injury because it was not violent or savage. {4-19-4} However, some officials would use the next sentence in that citation: A technical non-contact foul which displays unacceptable behavior.
I'm just going to reiterate (iterate?) what JR said. The rule justification for ejecting the player is not in 4-19, as you have mentioned. It's in the definition of fighting (4-18), which partially defines fighting as "the attempt to strike" an opponent with the arm(s) -- which of course, includes the elbow. So intentionally throwing the elbow in an attempt to hit an opponent is fighting, and therefore flagrant, and therefore a DQ.
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 11, 2006, 11:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,158
Mechanics ?

Live ball.Player A attempts to strike Player B, I judge this to be a flagrant act. What mechanics would I use since I can't issue a Technical ?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thrown ball into dead ball area 0balls2strikes Softball 7 Wed Aug 10, 2005 08:10pm
Elbow during live ball Buckley11 Basketball 71 Mon Feb 28, 2005 01:31pm
live ball/dead ball mdray Basketball 10 Wed Oct 20, 2004 01:05pm
LIVE BALL/ DEAD BALL INFO johnfox Basketball 1 Mon Oct 08, 2001 12:44pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:47am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1