Swinging elbow contact (video)

[ballgame99]

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

[Nevadaref]

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.

[BlueDevilRef]

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

[Raymond]

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

[PG_Ref]

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.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[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.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Dad

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.

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!!

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

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.

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.

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

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.

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!!

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.

[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.

[BillyMac]

2012-13 POINTS OF EMPHASIS
2. Contact above the shoulders. With a continued emphasis on reducing concussions and decreasing excessive contact situations the committee determined that more guidance is needed for penalizing contact above the shoulders.
a. A player shall not swing his/her arm(s) or elbow(s) even without contacting an opponent. Excessive swinging of the elbows occurs when arms and elbows are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arms and elbows is in excess of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot. Currently it is a violation in Rule 9 Section 13 Article.
b. 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 can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Dad

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.

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.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

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!!

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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.

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.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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.").''

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.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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

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.