Swinging elbow contact (video)

[Bad Zebra]

At a minimum...Intentional Personal foul. I think a case can be made for a Flagrant...I'd defer to the official who was on top of the play and had a better handle on the temperature of the player involved as well as his view of the action in question. Definitely not a T though.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

At a minimum...Intentional Personal foul. I think a case can be made for a Flagrant...I'd defer to the official who was on top of the play and had a better handle on the temperature of the player involved as well as his view of the action in question. Definitely not a T though.

I wouldn't defer too much to the official here ... he called a T for live ball contact. That speaks to his lack of credibility in my opinion. As was noted in a previous post, this would be an easy violation for excessively swinging elbows and the whole situation is avoided. I can't imagine a more textbook "swinging elbows" violation. It isn't until about the 4th or 5th wild elbow swing that there is contact.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

I wouldn't defer too much to the official here ... he called a T for live ball contact. That speaks to his lack of credibility in my opinion. As was noted in a previous post, this would be an easy violation for excessively swinging elbows and the whole situation is avoided. I can't imagine a more textbook "swinging elbows" violation. It isn't until about the 4th or 5th wild elbow swing that there is contact.

Perhaps. More likely the elbows would have continued swinging and there would have been the violation followed by a intentional or flagrant foul for dead ball contact. I doubt even calling a holding foul on the defense would have cleaned this play up soon enough to prevent the elbow contact.

As for the call, from the camera angle and with other players in the way, it is hard to tell if she lined her opponent up, making a definitive answer difficult, however, I am leaning flagrant, but would go with nothing less than intentional.

[BlueDevilRef]

Ok, is there any other signal if this is ruled flagrant? I realize it is not a T bc of live ball but do you just give regular signal and report as flagrant?


I wish I had a cool signature

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

Ok, is there any other signal if this is ruled flagrant? I realize it is not a T bc of live ball but do you just give regular signal and report as flagrant?


I wish I had a cool signature

Pretty much. There is no special signal for flagrant in NFHS, nor is there one for FF2 in NCAA. It's probably better this way; we don't want to be having instant DQs on the floor in this situation. Not having a signal gives A) the crew a chance to discuss before reporting, and/or B) the calling official a chance to process and decide while he's moving to report.

Of course you can always use the unofficial "'yer outa here!" ejection signal if the situation truly calls for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[deecee]

At minimum intentional, but I have a flagrant. Should have had a whistle for violation first. Then any contact would have been a T, but if the contact was similar to what this video shows I still have a flagrant.

[ballgame99]

No one has really mentioned it, but typically when a rebounder is swinging like this it is because the other team has been coming in late trying to steal the ball, maybe if a couple of those plays had been called fouls earlier in the game you never even get to this point. In this particular play WHite 4 comes diving in on the rebounder could probably have been called for a foul right before she gets popped in the face.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

No one has really mentioned it, but typically when a rebounder is swinging like this it is because the other team has been coming in late trying to steal the ball, maybe if a couple of those plays had been called fouls earlier in the game you never even get to this point. In this particular play WHite 4 comes diving in on the rebounder could probably have been called for a foul right before she gets popped in the face.

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

[BlueDevilRef]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Pretty much. There is no special signal for flagrant in NFHS, nor is there one for FF2 in NCAA. It's probably better this way; we don't want to be having instant DQs on the floor in this situation. Not having a signal gives A) the crew a chance to discuss before reporting, and/or B) the calling official a chance to process and decide while he's moving to report.

Of course you can always use the unofficial "'yer outa here!" ejection signal if the situation truly calls for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good info in this reply, thanks!


I wish I had a cool signature

[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.

[Rich]

I agree with those who say a held ball is a cop out.

I run into a lot of officials who think a quick held ball is a tool to prevent rough play. I think it's a tool to prevent having to officiate.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Rich

I agree with those who say a held ball is a cop out.

I run into a lot of officials who think a quick held ball is a tool to prevent rough play. I think it's a tool to prevent having to officiate.

I'll agree it's a cop out, but in my mind I'm ranking it like this:

1) Violation - good call
2) jump ball - bleh
3) no call - terrible.

I'm in no way advocating quick held ball calls to prevent rough play. I'm trying to point out the rough play is already occurring in this play. There's nothing to prevent, but there is something to stop.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Dad

I'll agree it's a cop out, but in my mind I'm ranking it like this:

1) Violation - good call
2) jump ball - bleh
3) no call - terrible.

I'm in no way advocating quick held ball calls to prevent rough play. I'm trying to point out the rough play is already occurring in this play. There's nothing to prevent, but there is something to stop.

2, and 3 didn't happen here. There wasn't a no call, could there have been a whistle for a violation, yes,but the official didn't get that. He did give a technical when an intentional foul was more correct. What he didn't do was make something up like a held ball, which frankly speaks volumes about you. There really isn't rough play going on until she connects with the elbow, followed by a whistle.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by OKREF

2, and 3 didn't happen here. There wasn't a no call, could there have been a whistle for a violation, yes,but the official didn't get that. He did give a technical when an intentional foul was more correct. What he didn't do was make something up like a held ball, which frankly speaks volumes about you. There really isn't rough play going on until she connects with the elbow, followed by a whistle.

There really isn't or there isn't?
There wasn't a no call but something could've been called?
He gave a technical when he should have given an intentional foul... more correct, or correct because one isn't?
I wasn't there to make a "made up" call. I did watch a bad video of a play and make a decision about it.

Could I be wrong? Sure, it's looked like it thus far. Does it speak volumes about me?

This post is typical quality for you. If you're going to make statements at least pick a side and back things up with rules/facts. Regurgitated opinions is what I expect from bad coaches.