Swinging of Elbows Foul

[McMac]

Had an excellent JV matchup tonight! (First HS game I have worked with my new district). Had a call in the girls JV game of swinging the elbows with contact. I call the foul, team is in the double bonus. I originally call 2 shots. After the first shot (which was made), I questioned my decision of shooting, as I believe that it would fall under a player control foul (as the player had possession when she swung the elbows). My partner said to shoot the second shot, which we did.

First, would this be a PC foul and no shots?
Second, if it is a PC foul, could we have used correctable error to nullify the first made free throw?

Thanks for the help!

[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.

[CDurham]

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.

Does the NFHS address this or are you taking this from the NCAA? Not being critical just wondering.

[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.

[RobbyinTN]

I have never called a swinging of elbows as an intentional unless it was extremely forceful. Not saying it wouldn't be - it is one of those HTBT situations. Anyway, in your scenario it sounds like it was the offense doing the swinging so it is a PC foul and thus no shots. It would then be change of possession at POI. If it is called as an intentional, it is two shots and ball at POI, not opposite table side. It would only be opposite table side if it were a T.

EDIT: looks as if we were answering at the same time but at least you got the same answer twice

[APG]

Some people are mixing up the NCAA rule and NFHS. There is no mandate that excessively swinging the elbows with contact is an intentional foul (though you could very easily have one). One has to judge each play and decide on the merits of the play.

To the OP, you said it yourself. A player in control of the ball fouled an opponent. The only way the opponent would be shooting would be if you deemed the play to be an intentional or flagrant foul. Two shots and the ball out of bounds at the spot closest to where the foul occurred. If you reported the foul as a player control and for some reason free throw were shot, this would fall under awarding unmerited free throws which is correctable.

[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 RobbyinTN

I have never called a swinging of elbows as an intentional unless it was extremely forceful. Not saying it wouldn't be - it is one of those HTBT situations. Anyway, in your scenario it sounds like it was the offense doing the swinging so it is a PC foul and thus no shots. It would then be change of possession at POI. If it is called as an intentional, it is two shots and ball at POI, not opposite table side. It would only be opposite table side if it were a T.

EDIT: looks as if we were answering at the same time but at least you got the same answer twice

None of this is POI. The ball would be put in play at the point nearest the foul, but that's not POI. POI in this situation would actually be A's ball, as they had possession when the whistle blew.

[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.

[McMac]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

To the OP, you said it yourself. A player in control of the ball fouled an opponent. The only way the opponent would be shooting would be if you deemed the play to be an intentional or flagrant foul. Two shots and the ball out of bounds at the spot closest to where the foul occurred. If you reported the foul as a player control and for some reason free throw were shot, this would fall under awarding unmerited free throws which is correctable.

I reported it as swinging of the elbows, not PC. Can I correct that part and cancel the unmerited free throw? I did not judge it as intentional or flagrant. The girl was moving her elbows with the ball in her hands trying to clear some space. She hit the opponent in the upper chest, shoulder area.

[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

[RobbyinTN]

Originally Posted by McMac

I reported it as swinging of the elbows, not PC. Can I correct that part and cancel the unmerited free throw? I did not judge it as intentional or flagrant. The girl was moving her elbows with the ball in her hands trying to clear some space. She hit the opponent in the upper chest, shoulder area.

Regardless of how you reported it, it was an offensive foul. Since you didn't call an intentional or fragrant, there are no foul shots. You correct it by canceling the free throws and giving the ball to the team at POI.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by McMac

I reported it as swinging of the elbows, not PC. Can I correct that part and cancel the unmerited free throw? I did not judge it as intentional or flagrant. The girl was moving her elbows with the ball in her hands trying to clear some space. She hit the opponent in the upper chest, shoulder area.

Yes, you could have corrected it, up until the second live ball after the clock started after the free throws.

[APG]

Originally Posted by RobbyinTN

Regardless of how you reported it, it was an offensive foul. Since you didn't call an intentional or fragrant, there are no foul shots. You correct it by canceling the free throws and giving the ball to the team at POI.

While that's correct for this situation, one must be careful with this line of thinking. It was a team/player control foul. Under NFHS, we could have free throws shot on what most would call an offensive foul if the foul was during a throw-in, yet we would shoot free throws.

[RobbyinTN]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

While that's correct for this situation, one must be careful with this line of thinking. It was a team/player control foul. Under NFHS, we could have free throws shot on what most would call an offensive foul if the foul was during a throw-in, yet we would shoot free throws.

True - I was speaking of this particular scenario only.