Swinging of Elbows Foul

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

My understanding is that contact involving a player with the ball swinging elbows is ruled an INTENTIONAL foul.

So not only should you have awarded two shots, but also the ball opposite the table. Those with a rules book handy or less lazy than myself can give the proper citation but that's my understanding and what I called in a BV game about 2 weeks ago.

Two things - first, a foul with the elbow is not always intentional, though it can be. Te NFHS does not have the new NCAA rule, though if the elbows are truly swinging ( and not just rotating with the ball) it could very likely be intentional or even flagrant.

Secondly, if it is intentional, it would be two shots and then the ball would be inbounded to the spot nearest the foul, not at the division line.

Finally, to answer the original post, if you simply had a common foul, it would be player control and no free throws should be attempted. You could have corrected this at the time you realized it under the correctable error rules.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Two things - first, a foul with the elbow is not always intentional, though it can be. Te NFHS does not have the new NCAA rule, though if the elbows are truly swinging ( and not just rotating with the ball) it could very likely be intentional or even flagrant.

Secondly, if it is intentional, it would be two shots and then the ball would be inbounded to the spot nearest the foul, not at the division line.

Finally, to answer the original post, if you simply had a common foul, it would be player control and no free throws should be attempted. You could have corrected this at the time you realized it under the correctable error rules.

I stand corrected. I was confusing NFHS and NCAA in terms of the rule and also administered the ball at the wrong spot in my game.

To the OP, unless you had intentional or flagrant, which you didn't, you should have simply had a PC foul and not awarded any shots. Like me, you live and learn.

This was the first time I had this call since some of the recent rule changes (which I obviously need to clarify for myself). It was an easy call to make as far as deeming it intentional. The kid seemed irritated that the opposing player made an attempt to steal the ball, lined him up, and caught him square on the jaw.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I stand corrected. I was confusing NFHS and NCAA in terms of the rule and also administered the ball at the wrong spot in my game.

To the OP, unless you had intentional or flagrant, which you didn't, you should have simply had a PC foul and not awarded any shots. Like me, you live and learn.

This was the first time I had this call since some of the recent rule changes (which I obviously need to clarify for myself). It was an easy call to make as far as deeming it intentional. The kid seemed irritated that the opposing player made an attempt to steal the ball, lined him up, and caught him square on the jaw.

Definitely sounds intentional, and could definitely consider flagrant if you are sure the player sized him up and tried to elbow him in the head.

[RobbyinTN]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I stand corrected. I was confusing NFHS and NCAA in terms of the rule and also administered the ball at the wrong spot in my game.

To the OP, unless you had intentional or flagrant, which you didn't, you should have simply had a PC foul and not awarded any shots. Like me, you live and learn.

This was the first time I had this call since some of the recent rule changes (which I obviously need to clarify for myself). It was an easy call to make as far as deeming it intentional. The kid seemed irritated that the opposing player made an attempt to steal the ball, lined him up, and caught him square on the jaw.

In that case it is an intentional as a minimum and could easily be a flagrant. It sounds like there was intent to injure and thus is fragrant and a T

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by RobbyinTN

In that case it is an intentional as a minimum and could easily be a flagrant. It sounds like there was intent to injure and thus is fragrant and a T

It was easily intentional but did not rise to the level of flagrant IMO. I'm very comfortable that I made the correct call even though I did not administer it 100% correctly.

As for the OP, after reading some of your posts it seems that you were in the mindset of "swinging elbow violation" and not foul. Obviously, the excessive swinging of the elbow without contact would have been a violation and no foul.

With contact, it is your judgment as to whether it is a common, intentional, or flagrant foul. If you do not deem it to rise to the level of intentional or flagrant, then it is a common foul and since the player had the ball it is a PC foul and no free throws are awarded. As noted, that is a correctable error.

Like I said before, we live and learn. I certainly learned something and got some clarification from this thread. Thanks for posting this.