Think I missed one....
 

Black 21 gets a def rebound. White 20 is now playing defense on the rebounding action and fouls. As I am going up with the fist and calling foul on W20, B21 swings elbow and contacts W20, above the shoulders . I totally dropped the proverbial ball and didn't call anything, just staying with the foul on W20. It was late in the game and as soon as we were done, I noted to my partner (a fairly new guy) that I missed it. My thought is I missed a false double, with the 2nd foul by B21 being intentional. And I'm pretty ticked I swallowed on the 2nd foul.
Your thoughts?

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.

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 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).

It was very bang bang. I would not have called it flagrant, but I do realize I should have had a whistle. I'm kinda pissed I did not.

Could be both.

I had a similar play last year. Rebound by A1, foul by B1, then about .5-1 seconds after the whistle A1 swings to clear space and contacts B1 in the noggin. Not to the flagrant level but a foul. I called a T and we moved on.

My personal feeling is that many officials let to much stuff go after the whistle because they don't want to call the T.

I don't mind calling the T, doesn't bother me at all. Especially since this was a local JH league where if a T is called, the only report is an email to the assignor and AD with a short note explaining it. In this case, which sounds exactly like what you described, I simply missed it/didn't call it. And as soon as I reported the white foul, I knew the opportunity was gone. But, won't make that mistake again.

Having just read this thread, I was prepared for this situation last night in BJV game. A1 gets held by B1 (just a clumsy JV play). Right after I whistle for the foul, A1 swings his arm to clear B1 away from him, making contact in the torso. Easy T to A1.

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.

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.

you are right, i rushed through the response.

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.

Contact Above Shoulders ...
 

2012-13 NFHS 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.

4-19-1-Note: Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant ...

Before this season, I would most likely have agreed with you. However, in NCAA-M, we are now instructed to determine the position of the forearms (vertical vs. horizontal) of the offensive player when officiating these plays. If the offensive player's forearms are more vertical than horizontal, the foul would be on the defensive player for violating the cylinder of the offensive player. This is a common foul on the defense. I would apply these same rules to dead ball contact as well. If the offensive player's forearms are vertical and contact is made above the defensive player's shoulders, this would be a common foul on the defense. Therefore, it should not automatically be a technical or flagrant technical foul on the offense just because the ball is dead.

Yes I agree, however this is one very specific scenario and you're not going to (I don't want to say ever) have this issue occur in a cylinder situation. In fact the cylinder exception IS FOR contact with a an elbow on a defender where the ball handler is making a rip through maneuver to move the ball from one side of their body to the other. The forearm is expected to be perpendicular to the court and any contact with the elbow is deemed a defensive foul. However contact where the forearm is parallel/horizontal to the court, its still a foul on the offensive player.

So although I did say that the expectation is that contact to the head is not to be ignored (and it isn't) in this case it would be. This probably covers a very small percentage of elbow contact. My statement was meant to be taken at face value with common sense applied that ya there is 1 exception.

In your scenario you are expecting a defender to be so close to get called for a foul (non cylinder foul), then the offensive player commits to a rip through maneuver. I just don't see it. It could happen, it's just not when how this happens. Usually it's off a rebound, or a trap and a kid is trying to clear space.

They did say that. After numerous silly results they backed off of that quite a bit, however.

And even before relaxing the interpretations, they (as indicated in the POEs posted by Billy) still allowed for a common foul involving elbows and the head. Several jurisdictions, and I think the NFHS too, clarified of what was meant by "movement" ruling that an elbow not moving relative to the body was just a common foul.

I never said it was only a Tech/Flagrant. The expectation is to NOT ignore it and a call must be made. You can read into it how you want, dead ball elbow contact to the head CANNOT be ignored. Since we cannot call a common foul the only option is T. The main reason is things escalate from there reasonably quickly.

You're contradicting yourself.

You simply can't, by rule, go with a tech just because the ball was dead unless it would have been an intentional/flagrant with the ball live. So, yes, you do ignore such contact, by rule, if it only rises to the level of a common foul.

Where can i find something saying they backed off or reinterpreted or gave a specific definition of "stationary" and "elbow in movement." I view the stationary elbow as play like where a screener holds arms at chest and elbows stick out beyond his stance. Defender runs into the elbow in that position--stationary--common foul.

If the elbow is moving, even at the same speed as rest of body because the pivot is moving it --intentional foul. If elbow is excessive--moving faster than the pivot--intentional or flagrant. I like the college rule much better. And it is written in the rules.

I can call it however they want. Can you tell me where there's something that defines movement as you mention above. I havnt seen anything saying that a players elbow which moves only because of the pivot is stationary. Or can be considered not in movement etc. thx

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.

Agree...swing = intentional (at a minimum) which then becomes a T.

At least at the NCAA, you only have to watch a number of the replays from this year and last year that clearly show elbow contact with a moving elbow where they come away with nothing or no upgrade. In the first year of the elbow updates, a large number of the same plays were ruled intentional. Now, unless it is a swing, they go with a common foul or, if not called initially, nothing.

And in our state, they gave the interpretation a while back that I suggested above....moving in a normal play is just a normal play and common. Moving faster than the body (excessive swinging) is an intentional. If it is vicious or targeted, it goes flagrant.

Offered By Forum Member ...
 

Camron I know the rule(s). Sometimes the rules and expectations of the job don't line up nice and pretty.

My assignors don't ask for calls that are not supported by rule.

[QUOTE=BillyMac;994999][IMG]https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1634/25129383649_0f32ceb38a_m



Can you make the print any smaller? I see a stick man who looks like he's taken to many blows to the head. Nothing else...and I did open my eye before trying.