Fun With An Elbow To The Throat ...

[BillyMac]

Low Post Contact - is there a foul on this play? Is there a foul? Who should be charged? Does the Lead official have a good angle on the play?

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

Two choices: This is a team control foul. This is incidental contact - play on!

My comment: This is a team control foul. Black #44 throws an elbow to the throat of White #30.

[JRutledge]

Just call an illegal ward off and move on. I have no idea if there was any contact with the head or neck area, but she clearly pushes off to gain space with her arm. Call the illegal ward off and you do not have to worry about calling anything else IMO based on what we see.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Clear TC foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... do not have to worry about calling anything else ...

IAABO makes it easy, only two choices: This is a team control foul. This is incidental contact - play on!

But I did give half a thought to an "above the shoulders" situation. Notice how White #30's head is thrown backward (don't think she's trying to win an Academy Award here). Just sayin'.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Just call an illegal ward off and move on.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

But I did give half a thought to an "above the shoulders" situation. Notice how White #30's head is thrown backward (don't think she's trying to win an Academy Award here). Just sayin'.

Let's give it a full thought, or a second thought. Should this elbow to the throat be treated as a simple common foul? Or does it rise above the level of a common foul?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Let's give it a full thought, or a second thought. Should this elbow to the throat be treated as a simple common foul? Or does it rise above the level of a common foul?

2012-13 Points Of Emphasis Contact Above The Shoulders
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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

2012-13 Points Of Emphasis 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 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.

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.

Every league was on that bandwagon at that time. The others all explicitly dropped that directive because it resulted in some absurd intentional fouls. The NFHS didn't retract it but they never repeated it either. The rules themselves do not support that direction. So, it is something that, by rule, is still open to interpretation.

IMO, the NCAA-M (and perhaps the W) have it right. If it is a basketball play with normal movements, it is not to be ruled intentional.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Every league was on that bandwagon at that time. The others all explicitly dropped that directive because it resulted in some absurd intentional fouls. The NFHS didn't retract it but they never repeated it either. The rules themselves do not support that direction. So, it is something that, by rule, is still open to interpretation.

Good points. Agree (open to interpretation).

My high school interpretation, I would, at least, consider a moving elbow to the throat an intentional foul.

Also, stupid NFHS (eight year old Point of Emphasis that never made its way into the rulebook, or casebook).

[JRutledge]

Again I see no such action to the throat. I see a normal ward off of a post player. Call the foul and it will stop. No need to prove you know some obscure POE that each year gets further and further away from what might have been intended at the time. Again we have had intentional fouls a few times because a POE since that time and nothing was mentioned about what to do specifically with contact above the shoulders. So when they put some language I might consider that fact, but pushing someone off as normal should be nothing but a common or team control foul in this case. It is not that complicated.

Even the NCAA does a better job addressing this kind of post play as well, tell us what is allowed and what is not allowed. But we know the NF would make things so much easier if they did, so they will not address this at all.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again I see no such action to the throat.

Watch White #30's head snap back (I don't believe that she's acting). Yes, it could be due to an elbow into her upper chest, and yes, we don't get a good look at the actual point contact because of the angle of the video (White #30's right arm is in the way), but if it looks like an elbow to the throat, swims like an elbow to the throat, and quacks like an elbow to the throat, then it may be an elbow to the throat (not certain, but I think that is was).

For sake of argument, if, indeed, it really was an actual elbow to the throat, should we, at least, consider an intentional foul in a high school game?

And if it's actually not an elbow to the throat, then my point (illegal contact above the shoulders) is moot.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Watch White #30's head snap back (I don't believe that she's acting). Yes, it could be due to an elbow into her upper chest, and yes, we don't get a good look at the actual point contact because of the angle of the video (White #30's right arm is in the way), but if it looks like an elbow to the throat, swims like an elbow to the throat, and quacks like an elbow to the throat, then it probably could be an elbow to the throat (not certain, but I think that is was).

For sake of argument, if, indeed, it really was an actual elbow to the throat, should we, at least, consider an intentional foul?

And if it's actually not an elbow to the throat, then my point is moot.

You are missing the point as usual. I did not that there was absolutely no contact with the opponent. I am saying that this should have been a foul long before this action at the end. And just because you make contact with the head and neck area, does not constitution under the rules an intentional foul automatically. If that was the case many fouls on a shooter to the basket would result in an intentional foul, which I never hear hardly anyone debate when the contact is slight and part of normal basketball action. So if you want to call that mess, fine. I do not work for IAABO so again I do not care what they suggest. But the NCAA talks about specific arm movement that is considered illegal by interpretation and we have no such standard or discussion at the NF level. If they did, we might have a foul before this even progressed. In Men's interpretation, the straight arm and contact are stated to be a foul alone. So that would stop everything else. Not about her faking anything, just not what the rule currently says should be an intentional foul.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... stupid NFHS (eight year old Point of Emphasis that never made its way into the rulebook, or casebook).

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... some obscure POE that each year gets further and further away from what might have been intended at the time ...

Agree. However, while the details may be debatable, I'm fairly certain that the NFHS still wants to reduce concussions and decrease excessive contact above the shoulder situations.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. However, while the details may be debatable, I'm fairly certain that the NFHS still wants to reduce concussions and decrease excessive contact above the shoulder situations.

This is not a blow to the head or neck. This was a push-off that started near the chest area and continued. Again my point is if you call the first action, no need to have to even think of where the contact took place. Again I am just saying that the specific post-action could be addressed with something other than no language whatsoever covering what is legal or illegal. Then you might not let this go on longer than it needs to go.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not that there was absolutely no contact with the opponent. I am saying that this should have been a foul long before this action at the end. And just because you make contact with the head and neck area, does not constitution under the rules an intentional foul automatically.

Never said that you believed that there was no contact, just that you believed (possibly correct) that the was no contact between a moving elbow and her throat.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is not a blow to the head or neck.

Sure, lots of chances to call a foul here, but none were called. I'm just referring to the contact that caused her head to snap back (no whistle in the video).

Yes, the current NFHS rulebbok (and casebook) doesn't specifically (excessive contact above the shoulder situations) call for an intentional foul here (unless one deems it excessive contact), but there was a Point of Emphasis in 2012-13 that told us specifically what to do with moving elbows causing contact above the shoulders.

Did the NFHS only want these "guidelines" enforced for that one year? I doubt it.

How long did they expect these "guidelines" to be enforced? Two years? Five years? More? Probably until there's a new relevant or pertinent rule, or a new relevant or pertinent interpretation, or a new relevant or pertinent Point of Emphasis. Or relevant or pertinent rules (or interpretations) changed to make these "guidelines" null and void.

Does the NFHS still want high school officials to enforce these "guidelines"? Not sure, but leaning yes.

How are officials with less than eight years of experience supposed to know about these "guidelines"? Experienced trainers (but that's a weak answer, the NFHS dropped the ball on this one).

Have any relevant or pertinent rules (or interpretations) changed over the years to make these "guidelines" null and void? I don't believe so.

Has the NFHS decided that it no longer wants (or needs) to reduce concussions and decrease excessive contact above the shoulder situations? I doubt it.

Does the NCAA do a better job adjudicating excessive contact above the shoulder situations? I've heard yes, but I don't "work" for the NCAA and I like to wait until NCAA interpretations "officially" trickle down to the high school level (as they often do) and want to avoid jumping the gun.

Stupid NFHS.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... if you call the first action, no need to have to even think of where the contact took place.

Agree.