Fun With An Elbow To The Throat ...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree 100%. I couldn't have said it better myself.

While I can't criticize you for deciding that the eight year old Point of Emphasis is null and void, please don't criticize me for be believing that it's still in force. We all know who to criticize. The stupid NFHS.

I did not say anything about this being null and void, I said that they could have clarified just this year with situations that are not being considered intentional fouls. Again, Intentional Foul is a POE this year, and nothing about contact to the head and neck area in that statement. I will also consider calling an elbow play as an intentional foul as I always have, but just because there is contact does not mean it rises to that level. This play was not a blow, this was using the arm to push off and it got a little high. I am comfortable with my position on this as I would be at the other levels that suggest that this would not likely be anything but a common or team control foul as well. I am a little tired of having this debate, but I think this is caused by the not addressing this by the NF, not necessarily individuals.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am a little tired of having this debate, but I think this is caused by the not addressing this by the NF, not necessarily individuals.

Agree.

As my Mom used to say, "I'm sick and tired ..." (referring to the poor behavior of me and my brother).

She would also say, "You kids are going to send me to Middletown".

Middletown, Connecticut is the location of the Connecticut State Psychiatric Hospital.

[BillyMac]

This doesn't really add anything substantial to the debate, but I did find several references (none sourced to the NFHS) online to a 2013-14 NFHS clarification of this issue.

I actually don't remember this NFHS clarification, can't find the original NFHS source, but (if true) it does bring the issue one year closer to the present (but it's still ancient history at seven years old).

Move forward to 2013-14 where NFHS further clarified in a Point of Emphasis the two varieties of this contact. Rule an intentional Foul when contact above the shoulders is not the result of excessively swinging the elbows – but in past seasons might have been ruled a common player control foul. Rule a flagrant Foul when contact above the shoulders is the result of excessively swinging the elbows. Remember, in scholastic contests, when a player “excessively swings” their elbows, at a minimum, a violation should be ruled even if no contact is made. If the contact is the result of excessive swinging prior to the official stopping play (for a violation) then a flagrant foul may be ruled – unless the contact is judged to be “slight of nature.” Penalizing rebounders for contacting defenders with their elbows, when pivoting to release an outlet pass should be at a minimum be ruled intentional – with the possibility of being flagrant, based on the “excessive nature” of the swinging.

Ohio Valley Board Of Approved Basketball Officials, Dec 13, 2019 (not a NFHS source): https://www.ovboardbasketballofficia...-the-shoulders. Accompanying video: https://video.wixstatic.com/video/e4...p/mp4/file.mp4

Sixty Seconds On Officiating (followup to 2014 post), 2019 (not a NFHS source): https://ref60.com/2019/01/my-elbow-cant-do-that/

Sixty Seconds On Officiating, 2014 (not a NFHS source): https://ref60.com/2014/11/elbow-contact-above-shoulder/

And I've already posted this "flawed" IAABO International play commentary, January 20, 2021 (not a NFHS source, no mention of more recent clarification): https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1042125

Also, I found two illustrations from the original NFHS 2012-13 Point of Emphasis:





Why has the NFHS "left us hanging"?

If the POE "guidelines" no longer apply, retract them.

If they do apply, put them in the current rulebook, or casebook, or at the minimum, emphasize it again.

Fish, or cut bait.

Stupid NFHS.

Or, am I stupid for believing that these POE "guidelines" still apply in high school basketball ؟ (It's a rhetorical question, note the reverse question mark, not intended to be answered.)

[BillyMac]

Found these nuggets of wisdom while doing research:

If a NFHS Point of Emphasis falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it still exist?

Young Basketball Official: "So, BillyMac, why did you charge that player with an intentional foul? His foul didn't appear to meet any of requirements of an intentional foul as defined in Rule 4."

BillyMac: "Because the player was swinging his elbows, not excessively, and he accidentally struck, not too severely, the opponent in the head."

Young Basketball Official: "Please show me that in the rulebook or casebook."

BillyMac: "Sure it's right here. Wait? It's not in our 2020-21 rulebook? It's in the 2012-13 rulebook. Check out your 2012-13 rulebook when you get home."

Young Basketball Official: "I don't have a 2012-13 rulebook. Back in 2012-13, I was still playing basketball in middle school. I didn't become a basketball official until last year."

BillyMac: "Well then young grasshopper, see Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. He's got that old rulebook up in his attic. I'm sure that he'll be pleased to climb the attic stairs and get it for you."

Aaaaaaaaaand, scene.

[BillyMac]

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...4gaKHDvw%3D%3D

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This is a team control foul.

This is clearly illegal contact committed by the offensive low post player. The offensive player extends an arm into the head and neck area and displaces the defender. It is tough to tell from this camera angle, but if the elbow contacted the defender above the head, this contact could be ruled intentional.

The lead official has a good angle on the play, but might of had a better angle by taking a step of two toward the sideline to get wider.

Illegal "off ball" contact remains an area in which officials need to make a concentrated effort to improve. Contact such as this needs to be addressed. If officials are diligent in enforcing this type of contact, it goes a long way in ensuring illegal contact such as this does not escalate throughout the game.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a team control foul 95% (including me). This is incidental contact - play on! 5%.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... if the elbow contacted the defender above the head, this contact could be ruled intentional ...

How can one contact a defender above the head? Hat? Hair? Text balloon? Defender upside down?

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...4gaKHDvw%3D%3D

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This is a team control foul.

This is clearly illegal contact committed by the offensive low post player. The offensive player extends an arm into the head and neck area and displaces the defender. It is tough to tell from this camera angle, but if the elbow contacted the defender above the head, this contact could be ruled intentional.

The lead official has a good angle on the play, but might of had a better angle by taking a step of two toward the sideline to get wider.

Illegal "off ball" contact remains an area in which officials need to make a concentrated effort to improve. Contact such as this needs to be addressed. If officials are diligent in enforcing this type of contact, it goes a long way in ensuring illegal contact such as this does not escalate throughout the game.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a team control foul 95% (including me). This is incidental contact - play on! 5%.

If this is ruled an offensive Intentional foul would the defense shoot two free throws and get the ball? Treated like any intentional foul regardless if offensive team committed it?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

If this is ruled an offensive Intentional foul would the defense shoot two free throws and get the ball? Treated like any intentional foul regardless if offensive team committed it?

Yes. The penalty for an intentional personal foul does not depend upon which team is in possession of the ball. Furthermore, if you check the definition of a team control foul, you will see that it must be a common foul, so any foul which is ruled intentional or flagrant cannot be a team control foul.