Think I missed one....

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by bas2456

Was it an intentional swing of the elbow? Obviously, if it's within the flow of play as you're calling the foul (if that makes sense) you have nothing. But if you feel it's intentional contact while the ball is dead, then yes, you should have called the tech (or flagrant).

I think I'm going to disagree here... Swinging elbow that makes contact above the shoulders has to be called. Makes no difference if it is intentional act for not. Its going to be two shots and the ball. The only thing that's left is to determine if player is ejected.

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

I think I'm going to disagree here... Swinging elbow that makes contact above the shoulders has to be called. Makes no difference if it is intentional act for not. Its going to be two shots and the ball. The only thing that's left is to determine if player is ejected.

If the ball is live, sure. But if the ball is dead because the first foul has already been called, I'm not sure it's automatic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by bas2456

If the ball is live, sure. But if the ball is dead because the first foul has already been called, I'm not sure it's automatic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Elbow to head ... Live or dead has to be called...if you don't... There are upset coaches, retaliation, etc.

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

Elbow to head ... Live or dead has to be called...if you don't... There are upset coaches, retaliation, etc.

Rule 10-4-7 (Player Technical) says a player should be charged with a technical if "intentionally or flagrantly contacting an opponent when the ball is dead and such contact is not a personal foul."

Obviously, if the contact is deemed to be either intentional or flagrant, address it accordingly.

My point is that I don't think the situation is absolute. If you would only call a player control foul if the ball were live, I wouldn't have a problem not calling a technical foul.

I understand I may be in the minority, and I understand that the "safe" thing to do would be to call the technical, but I'd better see clear intent if I'm hitting a kid with a dead ball contact technical.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by bas2456

Rule 10-4-7 (Player Technical) says a player should be charged with a technical if "intentionally or flagrantly contacting an opponent when the ball is dead and such contact is not a personal foul."

Obviously, if the contact is deemed to be either intentional or flagrant, address it accordingly.

My point is that I don't think the situation is absolute. If you would only call a player control foul if the ball were live, I wouldn't have a problem not calling a technical foul.

I understand I may be in the minority, and I understand that the "safe" thing to do would be to call the technical, but I'd better see clear intent if I'm hitting a kid with a dead ball contact technical.

It's not the minority, it's flat out wrong. It has been stressed that elbow contact to the head IS a foul. Common/technical/flagrant. Therefore it cannot be ignored simply because the ball is dead. It has nothing to do with "safe". It has to do with expectations of the job. IF there is intent its a flagrant and not a technical.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by deecee

It's not the minority, it's flat out wrong. It has been stressed that elbow contact to the head IS a foul. Common/technical/flagrant. Therefore it cannot be ignored simply because the ball is dead. It has nothing to do with "safe". It has to do with expectations of the job. IF there is intent its a flagrant and not a technical.

Common / Intentional / Flagrant. Whether Personal or Technical. (Recognizing that "common Technical" is not really a defined term -- but it should be. )

If the ball is live, it's a flagrant personal. If the ball is dead, it's a flagrant Technical.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Common / Intentional / Flagrant. Whether Personal or Technical. (Recognizing that "common Technical" is not really a defined term -- but it should be. )

If the ball is live, it's a flagrant personal. If the ball is dead, it's a flagrant Technical.

you are right, i rushed through the response.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

It's not the minority, it's flat out wrong. It has been stressed that elbow contact to the head IS a foul. Common/technical/flagrant. Therefore it cannot be ignored simply because the ball is dead. It has nothing to do with "safe". It has to do with expectations of the job. IF there is intent its a flagrant and not a technical.

If it is deemed common, it can and should be ignored if the ball is dead.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If it is deemed common, it can and should be ignored if the ball is dead.

I disagree with elbow contact to the head being ignored in this case and so do my local and college assignors. The FED and NCAA have made it clear that contact to the head is not to be ignored, and they have been very clear and succinct with the message.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If it is deemed common, it can and should be ignored if the ball is dead.

The poster said the player swung the elbow and hit him. Under the POE, that is an elbow in movement. Even if offense doesn't mean it, it's intentional by rule. Should not be ignored cause happened while ball dead. Under the POE as written it cannot be a common foul.

Again, I'll call it however they want, but I have not seen anything saying that can be considered a common foul. If elbow moving itself, or because body pivots it is still moving. I don't search a lot of things so I'm not saying there isn't something there. I just haven't seen it and wouldn't know where to look. Illinois had slides for its rules meeting saying same thing as POE. They have not issued any other statewide interpretation. I certainly would like the ability to call a common foul when the elbow is moving in a normal way, say on a pass) but I haven't seen anything allowing me to do it.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

I think I'm going to disagree here... Swinging elbow that makes contact above the shoulders has to be called. Makes no difference if it is intentional act for not. Its going to be two shots and the ball. The only thing that's left is to determine if player is ejected.

Elbow contact to the head cannot be ignored. If a foul has already been called then the only option is a Technical foul (you could have a flagrant, but its a you have to be there to make the distinction).