Help with a rule.

[Adam]

Your question's been answered, so I'll just say welcome to the board from a former Jasper County resident.

[refiator]

You could not call a technical foul in this case since it is a live ball...only an intentional or flagrant foul....but since you say it was not on purpose, chalk it up as incidental.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by refiator

You could not call a technical foul in this case since it is a live ball...only an intentional or flagrant foul....but since you say it was not on purpose, chalk it up as incidental.

You should rethink this. This would have to be a technical foul, possibly flagrant, if you call anything.

There are two types of fouls: personal (including intentional and flagrant) and technical (also including intentional and flagrant). Personal requires contact, so this would have to be technical.

[refiator]

This would be a flagrant personal foul. A flagrant technical foul would occur if the ball were dead and the player then threw the ball at the opponent.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by refiator

This would be a flagrant personal foul. A flagrant technical foul would occur if the ball were dead and the player then threw the ball at the opponent.

It's not a personal foul. A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent. Hitting someone with a ball is NOT contact with that opponent. If you make this call, it's an unsporting NON-CONTAT technical foul. Flagrant would depends on the severity of the situation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by refiator

This would be a flagrant personal foul. A flagrant technical foul would occur if the ball were dead and the player then threw the ball at the opponent.

As Snaqs has already pointed out, that's completely wrong by rule. Throwing the ball at an opponent during a live ball is a non-physical contact unsporting act penalized under NFHS rule 4-19-5(b). It's no different than swearing at an opponent during a live ball. And NFHS rule 4-19-1 states that any personal foul while the ball is live has to involve illegal contact with an opponent. There was no physical contact ever made in the OP.

The same concept is used on a throw-in. The ball is live on a throw-in and if a defender reaches OOB to touch the ball, it's a technical foul by rule. If the defender reaches OOB and makes illegal physical contact with the thrower though, it would be an intentional personal foul by rule.

It's not a bad idea when someone tells you that you're wrong by rule to take a minute to actually open the rule book and check out the pertinent rule before disagreeing.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

As Snaqs has already pointed out, that's completely wrong by rule. Throwing the ball at an opponent during a live ball is a non-physical contact unsporting act penalized under NFHS rule 4-19-5(b). It's no different than swearing at an opponent during a live ball. And NFHS rule 4-19-1 states that any personal foul while the ball is live has to involve illegal contact with an opponent. There was no physical contact ever made in the OP.

The same concept is used on a throw-in. The ball is live on a throw-in and if a defender reaches OOB to touch the ball, it's a technical foul by rule. If the defender reaches OOB and makes illegal physical contact with the thrower though, it would be an intentional personal foul by rule.

It's not a bad idea when someone tells you that you're wrong by rule to take a minute to actually open the rule book and check out the pertinent rule before disagreeing.

JR:

A1 is holding a live ball. B1 has a LGP against A1 just short of contact. A1, while holding the ball, shoves B1 in the chest, and displaces B1. What say you?

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

JR:

A1 is holding a live ball. B1 has a LGP against A1 just short of contact. A1, while holding the ball, shoves B1 in the chest, and displaces B1. What say you?

MTD, Sr.

I say T. I know we've gone round and round with this one in the past.

Just to clarify, the difference between this and the OP is that in your play, the player is holding the ball the whole time whereas in the OP, the ball is thrown.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

A1 is holding a live ball. B1 has a LGP against A1 just short of contact. A1, while holding the ball, shoves B1 in the chest, and displaces B1. What say you?

What made contact? The ball or A1?

No brainer by rule. Unsporting technical foul.

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

JR:

A1 is holding a live ball. B1 has a LGP against A1 just short of contact. A1, while holding the ball, shoves B1 in the chest, and displaces B1. What say you?

MTD, Sr.

I say, even though the ball contacted him, since it was still in A1's hands, it is illegal offensive contact by A1. He didn't throw it, he held it and shoved it, fully controlling the contact. PC.....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by refiator

This would be a flagrant personal foul. A flagrant technical foul would occur if the ball were dead and the player then threw the ball at the opponent.

So, A1 is bringing the ball up the court (live ball) when a) A coach swears at you for not calling a foul on B1 b) A1 swears at you for not calling a foul c) B1 screams at you for not calling palming.

You're calling personal fouls here since the ball is live?

JR has given you the rule references.

[refiator]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So, A1 is bringing the ball up the court (live ball) when a) A coach swears at you for not calling a foul on B1 b) A1 swears at you for not calling a foul c) B1 screams at you for not calling palming.

You're calling personal fouls here since the ball is live?

JR has given you the rule references.

No....I think we were just disagreeing on what "contact" is. In this case I was considering the thrown ball as a "rough tactic" by an opponent (10.6.1) and as "contact", but I see your point as well.












'

[Adam]

Originally Posted by refiator

No....I think we were just disagreeing on what "contact" is. In this case I was considering the thrown ball as a "rough tactic" by an opponent (10.6.1) and as "contact", but I see your point as well.

Now I see where you were going.
Read case 10.3.6, noting that rule 10-3-6 covers unsporting acts.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by refiator

No....I think we were just disagreeing on what "contact" is. In this case I was considering the thrown ball as a "rough tactic" by an opponent (10.6.1) and as "contact", but I see your point as well.

No, we're not really disagreeing as to what contact is. i believe that any official even moderately rules cognizant knows what contact is and that that contact refers to physical contact. So actually we were telling you that you are complwetely wrong by rule

We're all (as in a whole bunch of us) pointing out to you that the specific statement you made the we couldn't call a technical foul because the ball was live is completely wrong by rule.

When you say you can "see our point", does that mean that you're still insisting that it has to be a personal foul of some kind because the ball was live even though you can NEVER have a personal foul without contact by rules definition? Or is that a very well disguised admission that you were completely wrong in your understanding of the rules? Just trying to clarify where you stand now.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by refiator

You could not call a technical foul in this case since it is a live ball...only an intentional or flagrant foul.....

Wrong, wrong, wrong.