Nfhs question

[bob jenkins]

In general "recovers" <> "catches"

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

In general "recovers" <> "catches"

gotcha...then "in general" this would be a violation...

btw...2 responses 2 different answers.

[gslefeb]

I think the statement "A recovers in the backcourt" means the ball already had backcourt status prior to A touching in the ball in the backcourt.

[RookieDude]

Since we are asking "hypothetical" questions here..

Is there enough information in the following question to answer it correctily...and if you think so, what would you answer?

A1 rebounds a missed try, chins the ball with elbows sticking out. A1 pivots and contacts B1 in the head with their elbow.
A. No call A1 is making a basketball move
B. Team Control foul on A1
C. Intentional foul on A1
D. Flagrant foul on A1

IOW...using the NFHS on-line clinic which states that contact caused by a player with the ball and elbows extended, PIVOTING, can be either a common foul or incidental contact. (Not excessively swinging elbows, just pivoting)
...and using Rule 9-13

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

Since we are asking "hypothetical" questions here..

Is there enough information in the following question to answer it correctily...and if you think so, what would you answer?

A1 rebounds a missed try, chins the ball with elbows sticking out. A1 pivots and contacts B1 in the head with their elbow.
A. No call A1 is making a basketball move
B. Team Control foul on A1
C. Intentional foul on A1
D. Flagrant foul on A1

IOW...using the NFHS on-line clinic which states that contact caused by a player with the ball and elbows extended, PIVOTING, can be either a common foul or incidental contact. (Not excessively swinging elbows, just pivoting)
...and using Rule 9-13

C.

To call a flagrant foul requires intent to injure, etc. None of that is mentioned here.

An intentional foul is a foul to stop the clock, prevent opponent's obvious advantageous position, or cause excessive contact. The only one could be excessive contact, but should be used carefully. If there's a POE that says this is excessive, it is excessive. It's adding a category for that foul though.

It certainly isn't a normal basketball move to invade an opponent's space with your elbow and make contact.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

IOW...using the NFHS on-line clinic which states that contact caused by a player with the ball and elbows extended, PIVOTING, can be either a common foul or incidental contact. (Not excessively swinging elbows, just pivoting)
...and using Rule 9-13

Is that what the clinic says? For contact above the shoulders? (Just asking, because I don't watch it -- we get our own.)

From the POES:

Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties:
1) contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2) An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3) A moving elbow that is excessive and be either an intentional foul or a flagrant personal foul.

Of those, only the second applies to your play. So, that leaves options A (if the contact is legal because "it's a basketball move") and C (if the contact isn't)

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Is that what the clinic says? For contact above the shoulders? (Just asking, because I don't watch it -- we get our own.)

From the POES:

Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties:
1) contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2) An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3) A moving elbow that is excessive and be either an intentional foul or a flagrant personal foul.

Of those, only the second applies to your play. So, that leaves options A (if the contact is legal because "it's a basketball move") and C (if the contact isn't)

Bob...I believe a "stationary elbow" could be an elbow attacted to a body pivoting...the elbow is not moving faster than the body.

Am I wrong in interpreting it that way? Does it matter that it is above the shoulders? (It almost sounds as though it does...except in the clinic I saw, it had ABOVE SHOULDERS as a tilte with a statement saying it could be incidental or a common foul (PC)...maybe I'm misreading the clinic slide.

I usually call a PC foul in the question I posted....or could be incidental...all of this hinges on the "stationary elbow" definition IMO.

[RookieDude]

I found the Clinic Slide which I had ran a copy of:

CONTACT ABOVE THE SHOULDERS

__________________________________________________ ____________

a. A player shall not swing his/her arms(s) or elbow(s) even without contacting an opponent.

b. Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties:

1. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.


An elbow is stationary when a player pivots but does not swing the elbows (when the elbow moves with the hip)

2. An elbow in movement (when the elbows move faster than the hip) but not excessive should be an intentional foul.

3. A moving elbow that is excessive can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

An elbow is stationary when a player pivots but does not swing the elbows (when the elbow moves with the hip)

I guess that their definition of stationary is different than mine. Let's see, "the elbow moves", but it's stationary? Shows the difference between English and Basketballese.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

I found the Clinic Slide which I had ran a copy of:

CONTACT ABOVE THE SHOULDERS

__________________________________________________ ____________

a. A player shall not swing his/her arms(s) or elbow(s) even without contacting an opponent.

b. Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties:

1. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.


An elbow is stationary when a player pivots but does not swing the elbows (when the elbow moves with the hip)

2. An elbow in movement (when the elbows move faster than the hip) but not excessive should be an intentional foul.

3. A moving elbow that is excessive can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

Don't know where RD is located, but what is in red must come from one of his local or state office instructors. It is NOT how my area is interpreting this.
Pivoting involves moving the arms and elbows. That creates a greater danger to an opponent. This is vastly different from an elbow extended away from the body while screening.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Is that what the clinic says? For contact above the shoulders? (Just asking, because I don't watch it -- we get our own.)

From the POES:

Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties:
1) contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2) An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3) A moving elbow that is excessive and be either an intentional foul or a flagrant personal foul.

Of those, only the second applies to your play. So, that leaves options A (if the contact is legal because "it's a basketball move") and C (if the contact isn't)

...I just took our State Test...if you answered A or C...you would be incorrect.

Again, here is the question:

A1 rebounds a missed try, chins the ball with elbows sticking out. A1 pivots and contacts B1 in the head with their elbow.
A. No call A1 is making a basketball move
B. Team Control foul on A1
C. Intentional foul on A1
D. Flagrant foul on A1

...also your statement of "recover <> catches" would have also been incorrect in regards to the following question...

Again, here is this question:

Player A1, in his/her frontcourt, attempts a pass to teammate A2. While the pass is in the air, B2 tips the pass towards A's backcourt. A4 recovers the tipped pass in A's backcourt. This is a backcourt violation on A; give the ball to team B for a throw in nearest the spot of the violation.

A. True
B. False

Bob...not trying to be a smart #$% just showing that even great officials such as yourself can read these questions and interps, (which are not very well written IMO) and come up with totally different answers than others.

BTW...haven't heard from Nevada lately...has he changed his mind on Washington's interp of what a "stationary elbow" is?

Apparently even States have different ideas of the way certain rules should be interpreted.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

gotcha...then "in general" this would be a violation...

btw...2 responses 2 different answers.

I think Juggling Referee and I had the same answer, but since he has the canadian ruling, I might be wrong.