Swinging elbow contact (video)
 

I found this video on youtube, what do you have on it?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TmXVeF6UqH4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The action is difficult to see because there are other players in the way and the camera is at a distance.
If one of our video gurus could copy this and post it again such that it can be viewed in slow motion that would be helpful.
For now, my opinion is that the action constitutes either a player control foul or an intentional personal foul. I do not believe that it warranted a flagrant personal foul. The act was not savage or violent, just reckless.

Swinging elbow contact (video)
 

Video intro says flagrant and ejected. I'm ok with that but that was a terrible camera angle. Looks look the L just had a common PC foul but I didn't have sound on when I watched it so that might have more info


I wish I had a cool signature

He incorrectly called a T. She was purposely swinging her elbows and connected to an opponent's face. I'm good with a FPF.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

From the camera angle, it's hard to tell exactly where the contact occurred. If above the shoulders, a minimum of an intentional foul. If contact was below the shoulders, a minimum of a player control foul.

Press play. Hit YouTube link. YouTube lets you slow it down to .25 speed.

I doubt this is ever happening right in front of me. Probably could've called two jumps balls or a violation for excessive swinging of elbows. I'm pretty quick on jumps balls at this level when stupid stuff is liable to happen if you let it go. Again, could've called a violation also. Waiting was probably a mistake.

If it gets to an elbow in the face. Someone is probably sitting for the night.

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.

THe biggest question is, why did the video creator force us to look at the opening screen for 25 seconds? That's freaking ridiculous!!

You can't just make up a jump ball to keep this from happening. G21 was moving enough with the ball after the rebound that I doubt anyone's getting in there for a tie-up. There is the potential to call a violation for swinging elbows the first time she goes around, but due to the camera angle and the number of other players between G21 and the camera, hard to tell really.

Anyone have any thoughts on W34 with her "high clapping" after the foul has been called?

One more thing: How do you get half way through the second quarter of a girls game with only ONE foul called(prior to this one)? Surely there had to be some nasty ugly illegal screens that could have been called in the first quarter!!

Agreed on both points.... from this angle, I don't have any way to call a held ball.

Intentional Personal foul at a minimum, and I wouldn't try to talk a partner off a flagrant if I had this angle on the action.

Nothing more than a talk-to, unless a) she's staring down an opponent or clapping in the opponents face (neither of which are true here) OR b) she's been warned previously for a similar act.

It can happen... I had a varsity girls game earlier this season with only 4 fouls called in the first half. And I've had boys games where I've had both teams in the double-bonus within the first 6 minutes of game time.

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.

Let's Go To The Videotape ... ...
 

Umm, no. As someone else mentioned you don't make stuff up just for the sake of expediency.

Better option, since that's what took place. The whistle, hopefully, stops the swinging and keeps other players from getting close to the BH/D.

After the L mistakenly called the T - or even if he hadn't called a T - it would've been a good idea for both officials to get together and talk about what just happened. In an ideal world that allows them to make the proper ruling (maybe the T says, "Hey, that can't be a technical foul because it was a live ball."). His initial signal should have been a PC foul and then go up from there after a chat with his partner.

As for White #34, I'm in favor of a T because she was clapping towards the offending team. That's taunting. If she's walking away from the incident I say leave it alone. At any rate, that would've been something else for the officials to discuss when/if they got together.

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.

I agree. There are NO jump balls that I see in this video. There were several times opponents try to get their hands on the ball but it takes more than touching the to get a jump.

We don't really know if he was calling a T as much as he might have just not known the signal for what he was calling. We don't have enough of the video to know what happened next (who shot the FTs and where they resumed play). It could be that the did it right and it was just an incorrect signal. I did that once a couple of years ago.....my initial signal for a live ball situation was a T and I instantly know the signal was wrong and correctly dealt with it as an intentional foul.

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.

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

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.

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.

Good info in this reply, thanks!


I wish I had a cool signature

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

Are you seeing a jump ball at full speed or at .25 speed. My games are played at full speed.

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?

I don't see a jump ball, and our job isn't to anticipate "what" may transpire when making a call. In games like this you could probably get away with making up a call (I don't see why you would want to do it). But in some games you would only get yourself in hot water and this video and your explanation would most likely not sit well with you assignor if it ever gets to that.

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.

Agreed, if we are looking at a play in isolation.

I agree with ballgame's hypothetical that IF there were similar "reaching in for rebounds" earlier in the game and IF those had been called fouls (assuming contact was made, etc.), then there is a LOWER (but not zero) likelihood of the play in the OP happening.

Just having the hand on the ball doesn't necessitate a jump ball. If that were the case there would be dozens of jump balls each game.

There is no jump ball.

A violation should have been called.

Any action after the violation would have been dead ball contact.

However we have a swung, waist was the pivot point, elbow to the face. Flagrant.

He won't be asking you, "why didn't you fabricate a jump ball there instead?"

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 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.

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.

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

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?

Like a low level girl's game.

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

Heaven forbid we would want to discuss how to improve as officials. :rolleyes: 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.

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

What's the signal for this?:p

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.

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

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.

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.

Please research wack versus whack.

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.

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

How is violently swinging elbows not undue roughness?

Not questioning that. It's the pull a held ball out of thin air quote.

My thoughts:

Stupid unnecessary 25 second intro. Wtf.

No way that can be a held ball. I see three cleanup fouls that could have been called which probably (except for the last one) prevent the elbow. For me you get one crack at getting the ball....any more and it's a foul. Especially in girls games.

Shot clock guy is 2 seconds slow resetting on the rebound. Probably par for the HS shot clock course.

INT for me, but it's close. Haven't seen a lot of video on the difference between INT and Flagrant at the HS level, for me could depend on game/player situation.

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 agree, if we get the fouls first the elbow never gets thrown, and if it does it's easy to adjudicate since it's dead ball. Pretty easy intentional for the elbow, and I wouldn't be upset if it was called flagrant.

Someone saw a foul by the defense from this camera angle?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

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.

There could be one, just before the elbow landed. However I think even if you blow the whistle at that moment the elbow will still get thrown and connect.

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.

I can't see cleanup fouls here. Green #21 came out swinging (her body, at least) from the moment she grabbed the rebound. If there was a whistle against either player in White closest to the BH/D, that's not fair to either of them.


If there's something to stop then stop it according to what happened. Your 2nd and 3rd options shouldn't even be on the menu. Green #21 was swinging her elbows. That's a violation. If that isn't called, get the foul - IF or FF - once contact takes place.

:confused: