Nfhs question
 

If I were to ask a question in regards to a player RECOVERING A TIPPED PASS IN THE BACKCOURT...should I assume the recovered pass hit the backcourt floor first or the tipped pass was caught in the air?

I know from all the discussion here that an interp in 2007-2008 came out stating that a tipped pass in A's frontcourt by B and then CAUGHT by A4 would be a backcourt violation. How are we to determine the ball status when the question simply says "A4 recovers the tipped pass in A's backcourt"?

I'm assuming that A has TC in the FC, and a pass from A1 to A2 is tipped by B causing the ball to enter the BC. (Am I right?)

Quite frankly, if it says that, then there is not enough information, solely because of that interpretation that you mentioned.

However, if I had to assume that they think their question does provide all the information, then what's more likely: they they wish to quiz you on (a) a challengeable interpretation from years ago, or (b) that the ball did contact the BC before A4 recovered and is this a BC violation and/or when does the BC count re-start.

I think (b) is the answer.

Yes...IMO not enough information to answer this question correctly.

...and no where in the question does it state that "B CAUSED THE BALL TO ENTER THE BC".

In general "recovers" <> "catches"

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

btw...2 responses 2 different answers.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

When Is Stationary Not Stationary ???
 

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.

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.

...Nevada...only been on this forum for 11+ years...guess I have kept a pretty low profile...maybe I need my state in my username...WashingtonDude;)

...rockyroad, can you help me with this...surely you have taken the online clinic and have seen this slide.?.

...by "vastly" do you mean it is a "common foul", because of the illegal screen, as opposed to an "intentional foul" because of the "moving elbows"?

I think by "stationary", they mean in relative to the body/hip rotation, not actually stationary.

Allowing for a common for for normal movement that happens to result in contact with the elbow is the right thing IMO. The player, holding the arms in a normal stance and pivoting shouldn't be liable for an intentional foul just because the contact is on the elbow.

Confused In Connecticut ...
 

I'm not so sure that that was the NFHS's intent. They seem to want to step up the anti-concussion movement. Points of Emphasis seem to lack the "power" of rule changes, or casebook plays, so mark me down as confused.

In our state rules interpretation meeting, we were told pretty much the same thing as RD was told. I guess the distinction they are trying to make with a pivoting/"stationary" elbow is that the player is not technically "swinging" the arm(s)/elbow(s).

In my rules meeting in Central MO we were informed that even when pivoting if the elbow strikes above the shoulder it is an intentional foul because the elbow is moving.

I can confirm Colorado is interpreting it the same as Washington. Our state clinic was this morning, and it sure looked like an NFHS slide.

Correct that it isn't swinging. But I disagree that it's stationary -- it's moving.

Too many try to have "two states" instead of "three".

But, if that's what Washington (and the NFHS) want, ....

I agree, Camron. That's just how it was explained to us at our state rules interpreter's meeting.

...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.

I didn't post because Bob wrote my response for me.

So the wording is poor if the writers wanted the pivoting contact to fall within category 1 and not category 2.

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.

...I guess that is why Washington "clarified" that a "pivoting elbow" (when the elbow moves with the hip) is considered a "stationary elbow".
Category 1

...an elbow "in movement" is an "elbow moving faster than the hip".(but not excessive)
Category 2

... a "moving elbow that is excessive".
Category 3