2 questions

[justacoach]

1. What is the outcome of a made free throw when a member of the shooting team is occupying the lowest lane position??

2. Is there any option to have a common foul as result of new "excessive elbow". Ref got the mechanic correct but if it was PC, why award free throw (in bonus). It was not reported as flagrant, nor technical, nor intentional, which I believe are the only choices.

11U travel game Fed rules in effect

Thanks in advance for your replies

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by justacoach
1. What is the outcome of a made free throw when a member of the shooting team is occupying the lowest lane position??

It's a double violation.

2. Is there any option to have a common foul as result of new "excessive elbow". Ref got the mechanic correct but if it was PC, why award free throw (in bonus). It was not reported as flagrant, nor technical, nor intentional, which I believe are the only choices.

If a foul is called for making contact with the elbow, FTs would be sghot if the opponent was in the bonus and it was not a PC foul. If there was no contact, then it would simply be a violation.

[justacoach]

plz remember I'm just a coach.

Kindly explain double violation on F/T

[just another ref]

Originally posted by justacoach
plz remember I'm just a coach.

Kindly explain double violation on F/T

No point can be scored. If no further free throws are to be shot, possession arrow throw-in at the spot nearest the violation.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by justacoach
plz remember I'm just a coach.

Kindly explain double violation on F/T

It's a violation if a defender is not in each of the first spaces.

It's also a violation if a teammate of the shooter is in either of the first spaces.

Since each team violates in this case, the FT is cancelled and the 2nd FT is shot, if we're shooting 2. If not, the team with the AP arrow gets the ball for a spot throw-in on the baseline.

I've seen a lot of officials ignore the violation, if the FT is good, since the violation had no effect on the shot.

[zebraman]

Coach,

If you are thinking, "that doesn't seem fair, it's a double violation and yet only the offense gets penalized," you are not alone.

Z

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by zebraman
Coach,

If you are thinking, "that doesn't seem fair, it's a double violation and yet only the offense gets penalized," you are not alone.

Z

Which is why "a lot of officials" ignore it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by justacoach

2. Is there any option to have a common foul as result of new "excessive elbow".

YES. See my explanation below.

Originally posted by justacoach


Ref got the mechanic correct but if it was PC, why award free throw (in bonus). It was not reported as flagrant, nor technical, nor intentional, which I believe are the only choices.

If you have a 2002-3 NFHS rules book, look on page 69.
This is from the Points of Emphasis #4 Rough Play
Section E. Excess Swinging of Arm(s)/Elbow(s)
-When there is no contact with an opponent is now a violation.
-If contact is made, the official must judge the severity of the act and possibly even determine intent.
-A player control foul, an intentional foul or a flagrant foul may be called.

Rule 4-19-6 ...A player-control foul is a common foul committed by a player while he/she is in control of the ball or by an airborne shooter.

Therefore, if the player has the ball and the official judges the contact to not be intentional or flagrant, it is a player-control foul which is a common foul.
If the player does not have the ball, I believe that the rule demands the call be intentional or flagrant as there is no other choice.

[just another ref]

Originally posted by justacoach
2. Is there any option to have a common foul as result of new "excessive elbow". Ref got the mechanic correct but if it was PC, why award free throw (in bonus). It was not reported as flagrant, nor technical, nor intentional, which I believe are the only choices.

[/B]

I think the key word here is excessive. If the elbow in question was severe enough to be a violation had there been no contact, then it might very well qualify as intentional or flagrant. But a player without the ball will often extend his elbow while blocking out or setting a screen and contact could be minimal, yet still gain him enough advantage to call a foul. Perhaps the ref was not making a signal, but rather demonstrating the foul. Sometimes the signal for holding, pushing, whatever does not do a good foul justice.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
[/B]

If the player does not have the ball, I believe that the rule demands the call be intentional or flagrant as there is no other choice.

[/B][/QUOTE]Nope,if you don't think the elbow was intentional or flagrant,you just call it a common foul. R4-19-2.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 23rd, 2002 at 03:51 AM]

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

If the player does not have the ball, I believe that the rule demands the call be intentional or flagrant as there is no other choice.

[/B]

Nope,if you don't think the elbow was intentional or flagrant,you just call it a common foul. R4-19-2.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 23rd, 2002 at 03:51 AM] [/B][/QUOTE]

JR,
My point is that a simple common foul is not among the options given in the first line on page 69.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Nope,if you don't think the elbow was intentional or flagrant,you just call it a common foul. R4-19-2.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 23rd, 2002 at 03:51 AM] [/B]

JR,
My point is that a simple common foul is not among the options given in the first line on page 69.
[/B][/QUOTE]Nevada,my point is that the reference that you are using from P69 refers only to a player with the ball swinging an elbow and making contact.If the player does not have the ball and hits somebody with an elbow,as you stated above,then that statement on P69 simply does not apply.According to rule,you can now call a common foul,an intentional personal foul or a flagrant personal foul-your choice.Your statement above infers that you can't call a common foul on a player without the ball who hits somebody with an elbow,only an intentional or flagrant personal foul.This is not true.See where I'm coming from?

[Nevadaref]

JR,
I can certainly understand your point because before this rule was put in this year, we still called fouls for hitting people with an elbow.
It is interesting that you automatically took the comments on page 69 to be about a player with the ball. I did not make that assumption.
Lastly, the original question that was asked specifically stated "excessive elbow" when inquiring if a common foul could be called.
I do not see how something that is excessive could be a common foul. If it is away from the ball and the "player causes excessive contact with an opponent" then two criteria cited in the definition of an intentional foul are met. The quoted words are from 4-19-3.
So, I will stand by my statement that if an official calls an excessive elbow and contact was made by a player without the ball, it must be either intentional or flagrant.

[justacoach]

Sorry for omitting specifics on (2) but I thought it was implied when I mentioned PC foul. Player had secured ball after rebound. I don't believe there was any contact. My question is why were ft's awarded and the "foul" treated as a common. My take is it should have been violation with no foul of any sort assessed.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by justacoach
Sorry for omitting specifics on (2) but I thought it was implied when I mentioned PC foul. Player had secured ball after rebound. I don't believe there was any contact. My question is why were ft's awarded and the "foul" treated as a common. My take is it should have been violation with no foul of any sort assessed.

You are correct.