Elbowing

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Maybe, maybe not.

Wow, such a definitve answer. Is that your final answer, and are you sticking to it?

[DonInKansas]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Wow, such a definitve answer. Is that your final answer, and are you sticking to it?

It's the message board equivalent of a weak whistle.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

It's the message board equivalent of a weak whistle.

Our former interpreter used to say, "The best bad call, is a strong bad call".

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Our former interpreter used to say, "The best bad call, is a strong bad call".

How about these, made on a JV game last night:

1. ball bouncing toward the sideline, and a girl gets bumped out of bounds (you know where this is going). She jumps back in with BOTH feet and grabs the ball. TWEET! "She was out of bounds!" Going the other way.

2. Girl is fouled at the end of the half, and the lane is cleared for her FT attempts. One of the opponents wanders out on the court behind her, drinking from her water bottle, on her way to the locker room a little early. TWEET! "Lane violation! She gets another shot!" Oh yeah, I should mention that the shooter had not released the attempt yet.

These calls made by a 2nd year guy, who has a reputation for being unteachable. He did say that he learned something when we told him that call #1 was incorrect.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Wow, such a definitve answer. Is that your final answer, and are you sticking to it?

Maybe, maybe not.

MTD, Sr.

[iref4him]

This is what I have been told what to do -

1) If a player swings their elbows to create room or space and no contact --> elbow violation

2) If a player swings their elbows to create room or space and there is contact --> player control foul

3) If a player swings an elbow (not elbows) and misses --> technical foul. Then it is the descretion and intent to determine if you consider it flagrant or intentional. Flagrant, the player is disqualified. Intentional, the player stays.

4) If a player swings an elbow (not elbows) and makes contact --> flagrant foul. Flagrant, the player is disqualified.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by iref4him

This is what I have been told what to do -

1) If a player swings their elbows to create room or space and no contact --> elbow violation

2) If a player swings their elbows to create room or space and there is contact --> player control foul

3) If a player swings an elbow (not elbows) and misses --> technical foul. Then it is the descretion and intent to determine if you consider it flagrant or intentional. Flagrant, the player is disqualified. Intentional, the player stays.

4) If a player swings an elbow (not elbows) and makes contact --> flagrant foul. Flagrant, the player is disqualified.

iref4him:

The information that you have been given is a very good summation of how to apply this rule, with one small exception. Item (3) is not different from Item (4) except that in (4) contact was made, therefore the TF foul in (3) must be flagrant. It can not be just an intentional TF (by definition there is not such animal anymore in NFHS) even thought the flagrant TF could be intentional. And remember that the flagrant foul in (4) is a personal foul if it occurs while the ball is live.

MTD. Sr.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

It can not be just an intentional TF (by definition there is not such animal anymore in NFHS) .

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

[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.