Had an intersting discussion with a partner and a couple of other officials on a call during our JV game. A1 while dribbling in the frontcourt is very closely(but legally) guarded by B1. As she turns to drive to the basket and is stopped by this good defense, she hits B1 in the face with her elbow. B1 then falls to the floor and has to substituted for. (This is in my partners area on the other side of the key from me so I only got a partial look at the play).

A couple thought it could only be flagrant or PC (and nothing else) since A1 was dribbling. One person felt that it should have been a technical for swinging elbows. One person felt that you had to have the elbows move without the body or torso. Others felt with that much contact it shold be an automatic ejection.

My take was this. There would be no "technical" for "elbows". It is either PC, intentional or flagrant. If the contact was severe enough to knock her down and if A1 was looking right at B1 (evidently with an angery look) an intentional should have been considered. Without definite knowledge be careful of a flagrant in this case.
I hope I gave enough details without too much info to see the play.
Did I give the right info and was I correct. Any errors or bad advice on my part?
Thanks.

Probably PC, but if it's really vicious you might consider it flagrant. I don't think you can make this fit the definition of intentional or technical.

Not sure I would go there.
 

Not sure how you can call a flagrant or intentional in this situation. It seems like you could only really call a PC Foul. Just because the defender was caught with and elbow, that does not mean it was purposeful or an intentional act. The ball handler might have been making a move and just caught the defender's face. I am also speaking from a practical sense, not a black and white interpretation. But I think mostly you would only call a PC foul.

Just my opinion.

Peace

I think this one has to be seen to call. The eyes (of the offensive player) will tell the story: guilty of flagrant, or oops, are you O.K.

Barry

I think you have to see the whole play and if there is any chance of an intentional it can't be decided upon by the actions of the offending player after the contact. Now that I think about it I think an intentional foul is a gray area I wouldn't go to. Since it is an elbow to the face it I thought it was intentional in nature I would rule it a flagrant. There are way too many scenarios where, in reality, there is an intentional foul by an offensive player. Common sense tells us to call the PC and move on.

You are correct in that since it is a live ball, you have 3 choices - either PC, intentional, or flagrant. Cannot be technical. It's in last years rule book under POE. Judgement as to what flavor. I've used PC and intentional.

Mregor

Well, here's the definition of an intentional foul. . .

ART. 3 . . . An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position, contact away from the ball or when not playing the ball. It may or may not be premeditated and is not based on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent. (Emphasis mine)

Sounds like it fits the definition to me. . .

It is called common sense.
 

Of course it fits the definition, but it does not pass the smell test of common sense. I find it hard to call an intentional on a player that is dribbling, that happens to turn into a defender. That is why I made the point of <i>"not being a black and white interpretation."</i>

Peace

Re: It is called common sense.
 

That was my only point. It's nice when we agree.

Agree or disagree......
 

The point is not about whether we agree (for me), the point is what I am going to call and what I think is a good call. Of course anyone can do what they want, but you can either be a "rulebook official" or you can use common sense. ;)

Peace

Rut, what are you saying you would call? I would probably call a flagrant foul if we are talking about catching an elbow. I don't like the intentional foul in this situation because there are many things that an offensive player does that is called a PC that is intentional. For instance if a player gives a defender a shoulder to create space for a shot doesn't he or she do that intentionally?
Contact - PC
Elbow above the shoulders, especially, that doesn't occur because of the natural swinging of the arms - Get comfortable on the bench for federation and have a nice long shower for NCAA.

I agree with tomegun.

If an elbow is intentionally thrown at another player's face, I have a flagrant foul. Anytime an elbow is intentionally thrown, you have to consider that it may be flagrant. Nialing an opponent in the face makes it an easy call.

PC Foul.
 

I can only see myself calling a PC foul. I cannot see myself calling and intentional or flagrant unless they measured the player and threw the elbow. And I have never seen that happen. But I have seen a player throw an elbow in a normal turn and hit a player in the face.

Peace

I've seen it once. Had it a couple of years ago.

A1 was fouled while rebounding. As I blew the whistle, he intentionally came around with his elbow and nailed the kid who had failed him, right in the jaw.

Easy call. See ya.

Again, if I thought it was intentional, it would be flagrant in my book. But that doesn't mean every elbow thrown is intentional. It could be called a PC if judged unintentional. But I can't see ignoring it completely if the elbower swings his elbow outside his vertical plane.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Jan 13th, 2004 at 02:22 PM]

I agree. An elbow can be pretty severe and still be an unintentional, instinctive reaction, by a dribbler fighting off a defender. But a blow with an elbow which appears to be intentional, especially if it contacts the face could certainly be considered flagrant. "a violent or savage nature"