Nfhs question

[RookieDude]

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"?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

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.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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?)

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".

[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)

[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.