Swinging elbow contact (video)

Raymond

Dad wrote
It's not making up a call. It's the same concept behind calling a jump ball instead of a travel even though the defender didn't have their hand on the ball for more than a step.

She's clearly swinging around wildly with her elbows. The official made a mistake letting it go, twice.

I have a violation and I'm calling it when she violates the swinging elbows rule.

I'm not sure why we're bringing assigners into this, but any decent assigner who also assigns me my 5a/collegiate is asking me why I'm letting a player at a low level swing around wildly and waiting for someone to get hurt to blow my whistle.

I don't think anybody is arguing the possibility of calling excessive swinging of the elbows. What's being questioned is your ability to see a held ball from this camera angle.

That travel/held ball concept is not anything I've ever heard of.

Dad

deecee wrote
Just having the hand on the ball doesn't necessitate a jump ball.

I agree, but with other factors it does -- shooter. I'm not calling a jump here, but if the official isn't going to call a violation then I'm okay with a jump. Anything to stop this kind of play from continuing.

Dad

BadNewsRef wrote
I don't think anybody is arguing the possibility of calling excessive swinging of the elbows. What's being questioned is your ability to see a held ball from this camera angle.

That travel/held ball concept is not anything I've ever heard of.

I'm calling a violation, but here's why I say jump ball. Looks like there's probably a hand on the ball when she starts swinging. If you're not going to call the violation then she's using undue roughness to get the ball away. Imo, calling a jump ball is better than waiting for someone to get wacked. Violation is the much better call, no question.

WhistlesAndStripes

Dad wrote
Full. Looks to me like there's an initial excessive swinging of elbows with the defense having hands on the ball. I'm probably making a call here based off what I think this game has looked like after watching this play.

Why let her swing around and not get it right away with a clump of players involved?

What exactly do you think this game has looked like after watching this play?

crosscountry55

Ok, so off topic but....

3-person crew in a California sub-varsity tournament? That is an unexpected sight.

WhistlesAndStripes

crosscountry55 wrote
Ok, so off topic but....

3-person crew in a California sub-varsity tournament? That is an unexpected sight.

WHy don't you start a new thread instead of trying to derail this one?

Dad

Whistles & Stripes wrote
What exactly do you think this game has looked like after watching this play?

Like a low level girl's game.

WhistlesAndStripes

Dad wrote
Like a low level girl's game.

OK, but what kind of activity are you assuming has occurred to justify a made up call?

ballgame99

deecee wrote
Who cares what may have happened. Call fouls based on what HAS happened.

Heaven forbid we would want to discuss how to improve as officials. 🙄 And my comment did talk about the existing play, I said white 4 could be called for a push immediately prior to getting popped in the face. Have a nice day.

Kansas Ref

ballgame99 wrote
Heaven forbid we would want to discuss how to improve as officials. 🙄 And my comment did talk about the existing play, I said white 4 could be called for a push immediately prior to getting popped in the face. Have a nice day.

*Evidently 'ballgame99' is referring to the use of 'preventive officiating'; which is a point well-taken. From my perch, I've seen some rebounders (A1) who immediately use the "chin it" technique when they have obtained control of the rebound. Visualize: holding ball close to chest with elbows horizontal and static. Now, if B1 want to nit-pik and swipe at the ball (instead of playing patient on-ball defense) once it's in that secured position, then I will call a 'hit' foul on B1 to prevent A1 from having to escalate his/her protective measures (i.e., by the use of 'elbow swinging')--ergo a turnover for team A due to the violation cited in "9-13-1-Penalty". So, I guess one could say that I tend to err towards the 'rebounder's rights' to protect the ball/posession instead of penalizing him/her.

Dad

Whistles & Stripes wrote
OK, but what kind of activity are you assuming has occurred to justify a made up call?

I've already made my case for what I said. Doubt anything else is going to appease you.

WhistlesAndStripes

Kansas Ref wrote
*Evidently 'ballgame99' is referring to the use of 'preventive officiating'; which is a point well-taken. From my perch, I've seen some rebounders (A1) who immediately use the "chin it" technique when they have obtained control of the rebound. Visualize: holding ball close to chest with elbows horizontal and static. Now, if B1 want to nit-pik and swipe at the ball (instead of playing patient on-ball defense) once it's in that secured position, then I will call a 'hit' foul on B1 to prevent A1 from having to escalate his/her protective measures (i.e., by the use of 'elbow swinging')--ergo a turnover for team A due to the violation cited in "9-13-1-Penalty". So, I guess one could say that I tend to err towards the 'rebounder's rights' to protect the ball/posession instead of penalizing him/her.

What's the signal for this?:p

Raymond

Kansas Ref wrote
*Evidently 'ballgame99' is referring to the use of 'preventive officiating'; which is a point well-taken. From my perch, I've seen some rebounders (A1) who immediately use the "chin it" technique when they have obtained control of the rebound. Visualize: holding ball close to chest with elbows horizontal and static. Now, if B1 want to nit-pik and swipe at the ball (instead of playing patient on-ball defense) once it's in that secured position, then I will call a 'hit' foul on B1 to prevent A1 from having to escalate his/her protective measures (i.e., by the use of 'elbow swinging')--ergo a turnover for team A due to the violation cited in "9-13-1-Penalty". So, I guess one could say that I tend to err towards the 'rebounder's rights' to protect the ball/posession instead of penalizing him/her.

And what if all the swipes at the ball are clean? I was very adept at popping the ball out of a rebounder's hands.

Rich

(Why can't people just call the game and not make shit up?)

APG

I feel trying to justify a held ball is only cause one saw the end result of this video. In no world is the action in the video close to a held ball. Sometimes, **** happens.

I'd lean toward a flagrant foul. Wind up, impact, follow through....there's at least two on this play...impact above shoulders and a follow through.

biggravy

Not likely, but possible that L had a foul, she said something immediately and he then had a T... he may just be guilty of quick signals.

WhistlesAndStripes

biggravy wrote
Not likely, but possible that L had a foul, she said something immediately and he then had a T... he may just be guilty of quick signals.

I had that thought previously as well, but then thought no, because the T would deserve to have a whistle of it's own on it as well, and there was no second whistle to go with the T.

Nevadaref

Dad wrote
I'm not making anything up. Watch the video. There is an easy jump ball/swinging elbows situation where you can call either.

There's an elbow swing. A jump. An elbow swing. A jump. WACK a face shot. I'm not clipping another obvious video to make my point. Go to youtube and slow it down if it's too fast for you.

Please research wack versus whack.

JetMetFan

JetMetFan wrote
His initial signal should have been a PC foul and then go up from there after a chat with his partner.

Camron Rust wrote
If you think something is an Intentional foul, it isn't a PC at all and the PC signal would actually also be incorrect. I go straight to the X signal if i think something is an IF. I don't have a problem upgrading if I've gone only PC first if a partner gives me more info but I see no reason to go with a PC signal initially on this.

My mistake. I should have written the L's initial signal should have been a fist in the air. After that the crew can get together and discuss.

OKREF

Dad wrote
I agree, but with other factors it does -- shooter. I'm not calling a jump here, but if the official isn't going to call a violation then I'm okay with a jump. Anything to stop this kind of play from continuing.

Not the first time you've posted something from the MSU manual.:rolleyes:

« Previous Page Next Page »