Going Out with a Bang

[Spaman_29]

Well what a last regular season game that I had of the year. I have a pretty good game going until a big center rebounds a ball and decideds to use his elbow to create some space and running room. Well both my partner and I have the foul but I went with the flagrant 't'. Which brings an automatic suspension in the next game. Coach then decided that he doesn't care for the ruling and slams the possession arrow on the table. He earned his. Then as I am discussing with my partner what I have, he goes over to the table and does it again. Second one he is done, at least my partner got that one so I don't look like the big bad guy on the scene. With the free throws the team ends up tying up the game with a minute to go. UGLY, all I can say is UGLY.

[devdog69]

Not to nitpick, Spaman, but wouldn't the correct terminology be a flagrant personal foul? Sounds bad but I can see it happening exactly like that, the way they throw those high elbows after ripping down a rebound.

[cmckenna]

nope... he's right... excessive swinging of the elbows = T

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by cmckenna
excessive swinging of the elbows = T

Yeah, but excessive contact would be personal. If you're just going to call the swing, it seems hard to justify it as flagrant. How can you flagrantly swing the elbows? It's the contact that's flagrant, so call it a flagrant personal.

Or you could say that the swing caused a T, making the ball dead. Therefore, the contact that followed was also a T. But then you have to charge 2 T's.

Not that it matters to anybody except the refs, but I like the personal call here.

Chuck

[RookieDude]

Is it just me?....I don't like the call. You're going to kick a kid out of the game, he's going to miss the next game...all for swinging his elbows?

I agree it should be a T for excessive swinging with no contact. Proabably could be an intentioanl foul for contact. But, to give the kid a flagrant foul? It must have been a humdinger.

RD

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Under both NFHS and NCAA rules, excessively swinging the elbows without making contact is a violation, plus under NFHS rules it simultaneously a technical foul against the player who committed the violation. Under NCAA rules the offended team gets possession of the ball for a throw-in nearest the spot of the violation. Under NFHS rules, any player or incomming subsitute on the offended team can shoot the free throws and the offended team then gets possession of the ball for a throw-in at the division line opposite the Score Table.

Under both NFHS and NCAA rules, if contact is made it is not a violation but a personal foul, at this point the official must make a decision, was the foul a common foul (player control foul) or an intentional foul or a flagrant foul. If the official decides that the foul is intentional or flagrant, the player who was fouled shoots the free throws and his team receives possession of the ball for a throw-in nearest the spot of the foul.

It is important to remember that contact fouls when the ball is live are personal fouls not technical fouls.

[bigwhistle]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Under both NFHS and NCAA rules, excessively swinging the elbows without making contact is a violation.....

Where do you find that this is a violation under NFHS rules? It is sorta a moot point, since because of the T which will be called, the other team will shoot free throws and get the ball at the division line, but for those who believe that the book is the only answer, where did you get this?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by bigwhistle

Where do you find that this is a violation under NFHS rules? It is sorta a moot point, since because of the T which will be called, the other team will shoot free throws and get the ball at the division line, but for those who believe that the book is the only answer, where did you get this?

It's not a violation under nfhs. I think Mark knows this
but got carried away in the moment.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

It is important to remember that contact fouls when the ball is live are personal fouls not technical fouls.

Even fighting? NF 10.3.10.

[Slider]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Even fighting? NF 10.3.10.

Even fighting, 10.4.4A. BTW, I can't find your reference.

If contact is not made, I would try to gauge the severity of the swinging as if contact were made, i.e., if the elbows hit would the contact warrant a flagrant? If the answer is yes, then the non-contact T should be flagrant, IMO.

[CanadaRef]

In NCAA rules, fighting during a live ball is a flagrant personal foul. (Rule 10, section 16, article 2) Page BR-123.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Even fighting? NF 10.3.10.

Fights during a live ball are personal fouls.A better reference is Case Book 10-4-4Sit.A.

[Mark Padgett]

While case 10.4.4.A states that the two players who were fighting (notice it does not specifically state the ball was live at the time, but even the NF wouldn't be stupid enough to contradict themselves so blatantly) results in a double "personal" foul, rule (not case) 10.3.10 says a player technical shall be issued to any player charged with fighting. It does not state the ball has to be dead.

Another dichotomy in the NF rules. You would think that after 100 years, they would have caught this stuff.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
While case 10.4.4.A states that the two players who were fighting (notice it does not specifically state the ball was live at the time, but even the NF wouldn't be stupid enough to contradict themselves so blatantly) results in a double "personal" foul, rule (not case) 10.3.10 says a player technical shall be issued to any player charged with fighting. It does not state the ball has to be dead.

Another dichotomy in the NF rules. You would think that after 100 years, they would have caught this stuff.

Case Book 10.4.4SitB specifically covers a fight during a dead ball.Penalty is flagrant technicals.CB10.4.4A has to refer to a live ball situation.It's the only other choice. The language certainly isn't the best,but I think R10-3-10 refers to dead ball/clock stopped situations.As you said-another day,another dichotomy!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Without pulling out the rules books and casebooks let me add a few things to the thread.

First, excessively swinging the elbows without making contact was a originally a violation under both NFHS and NCAA rules. When the NFHS made it a technical foul, it was described to many intepreters as a violation as well as a technical foul, which really cannot be because you cannot have both (unless you have basket interference or goaltending on a free throw, but that is the making of a different thread).

Second, the definitions of personal fouls and technical fouls are absulutes. I know what the definition of fighting is in both NFHS and NCAA rules books. But first and foremost if the ball is live when a contact foul occurs, the foul is a personal foul, whether it is a common foul, foul committed against a player in the act of shooting, intentional, or flagrant (fighting is a flagrant foul).

I know that the technical foul reference to fighting is confusing, but it is meant to apply to players and substitutes who participate in a fight once the ball is dead. If A1 and B1 decided to trade punches while the ball is live, these fouls are personal fouls which is defined as a double personal foul (as well as flagrant fouls) and both players would be guilty of fighting. The double foul causes the ball to become dead and if any other player(s) decides to join the dance he/they would be guilty of fighting and the fighting foul would be a flagrant technical. If A1 and B1's double foul had occured while the ball was dead just change personal to technical in my description of the play.

I hope that this clears up what I originally wrote.

I would like to add a personal oppinion concerning excessively swinging ones elbows without making contact being a technical foul. When it was only a violation under NFHS rules, no one ever called the violation (I did once in a boys' H.S. varsity game during the 1985-86, no kidding), so I am confused as to why the Rules Committee would think that making it a technical foul (I called it once in a girls' H.S. varsity game during the 1997-98 season) would improve the situation. And I cannot remember ever calling the violation in a college game or a AAU girls' or AAU womens'game (AAU girls and women's use NCAA Woimen's rules). I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that if A1 is guilty of a technical foul under the NFHS rule, that the covering official is more likely to call a player control foul on A1 if B1 is so close to A1 that the covering official is the only person besides the two players who knows that there was no contact by A1 against B1.