Elbowing

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Refsmitty

Situation BJV last night

A1 getting post position to receive pass into the post - I am lead -
A1 swings a pretty visious elbow but misses the defender behind him - I call elbow violation - what would you have?

The way you describe it a violation.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

4-19-3: ART. 3 . . . An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul

Bob:

I know, what the rule book says but since we no longer shoot one free throws for TF's that are neither intentional nor flagrant what is the difference between a non-intentional, non-flagrant TF and an intentional, non-flagrant TF under NFHS rules.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Bob:

I know, what the rule book says but since we no longer shoot one free throws for TF's that are neither intentional nor flagrant what is the difference between a non-intentional, non-flagrant TF and an intentional, non-flagrant TF under NFHS rules.

The difference is that you can't call a non-intentional, non-flagrant technical foul for contact after the ball has become dead, or for non-intentional, non-flagrant contact committed by or on an airborne shooter after the ball is dead either. Iow, you couldn't apply NFHS rules 4-19-1NOTE or 4-19-5(c). You can call an intententional or flagrant technical foul under those circumstances though.

Are you proposing that we just ignore those rules completely, as if they didn't exist?

Silly monkey!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The difference is that you can't call a non-intentional, non-flagrant technical foul for contact after the ball has become dead, or for non-intentional, non-flagrant contact committed by or on an airborne shooter after the ball is dead either. Iow, you couldn't apply NFHS rules 4-19-1NOTE or 4-19-5(c). You can call an intententional or flagrant technical foul under those circumstances though.

Are you proposing that we just ignore those rules completely, as if they didn't exist?

Silly monkey!

JR:

Speaking per NFHS Rules only (because where play is continued after an intentional, non-flagrant foul in NCAA Rules makes it necessary for there to be a definition of an intentional TF) the point I am trying to make is, that penalty wise, under NFHS Rules, there is no difference between a non-intentional, non-flagrant TF and an intentional, non-flagrant TF: Two free throws and possession of the ball for a throw-in at the division line opposite the Scorer's/Timer's Table.

When the penalty for a non-intentional, non-flagrant TF was one free throw and possession of the ball for a throw-in at the division line (and at one time the team had the option as to which side of the court to take its throw-in for all TF's), there was a need for an intentional, non-flagrant TF. Now there is not.

Of course that does not mean that the actions that warrant a TF cannot be deemed intentional by rule, it just is not relevant anymore penalty wise.

MTD, Sr.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

Contact doesn't matter. If you deem the swinging excessive, call the violation.

You're not actually saying that it's a violation even if our intrepid elbow swinger contacts an opponent, are you?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

JR:

Speaking per NFHS Rules only (because where play is continued after an intentional, non-flagrant foul in NCAA Rules makes it necessary for there to be a definition of an intentional TF) the point I am trying to make is, that penalty wise, under NFHS Rules, there is no difference between a non-intentional, non-flagrant TF and an intentional, non-flagrant TF: Two free throws and possession of the ball for a throw-in at the division line opposite the Scorer's/Timer's Table.

When the penalty for a non-intentional, non-flagrant TF was one free throw and possession of the ball for a throw-in at the division line (and at one time the team had the option as to which side of the court to take its throw-in for all TF's), there was a need for an intentional, non-flagrant TF. Now there is not.

Of course that does not mean that the actions that warrant a TF cannot be deemed intentional by rule, it just is not relevant anymore penalty wise.

MTD, Sr.

There's still one significant difference between an intentional TF and a flagrant TF ... the disqualification of the offender.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

There's still one significant difference between an intentional TF and a flagrant TF ... the disqualification of the offender.

BITS:

JR and you are missing the point: I am discussing only the penalties for TF's. We all agree that disqualification is part of the penalty for a flagrant TF. The disqualification part of the penalty is not what I am discussing. Under NFHS Rules the penalty is the same for both a NON-intentional, NON-flagrant TF and an intentional, NON-flagrant TF: two free throws and possession of the bal for a throw-in at the division line.

There was a time when there was a need for a distinction between NON-intentional, NON-flagrant TF's and intentional, NON-flagrant TF's. The free-throw penalty for the former was one free throw and for the latter was two free throws.

MTD, Sr.