Say what? Have you got a rule citation that will back that up? I certainly can't think of one. Rule 4-19-5(b)- "A technical foul is a noncontact foul by a player". The best example of this would be taunting or trash-talking while the game is going on-----> i.e. an ordinary, plain-old technical foul. Devon, Snaqs et al have got the right ruling.

Also, the definition of fighting in R4-18-1 says "Fighting includes....an attempt to strike, punch or kick an opponent with fists, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made". No mention of elbows by the NFHS in there. It's a heckuva stretch to try and call an elbow with NO retaliation fighting at any time.

Excessively swinging of the arms is a violation. It also has a mechanic illustrated on the signal chart provided at NFHS.

I beleive that is a current rule, I do not have my book with me perhaps someone can make a citation.

I think he mixed it up. I agree with you though JR. You can call a technical foul at any time, but when the ball is live you cannot have contact.

That's the right rule, Rob. Rut had it right too. The citation is rule 9-13.

It does say arms JR. Last I checked the elbow is part of the arm. The intent of the rule for swinging is to avoid a kid taking one in the chops by a kid creating space by moving their elbows and not their body.

I can see a difference between swinging elbows and THROWING an elbow. The first is penalized by either violation or foul (PC, intentional, or flagrant), the second could be seen as fighting if thrown and MISSED. If it lands, it's flagrant.

Agreed %100...and guess what, NFHS R4-18-1 dosen't say anything about HEADS either...but if a kid throws a head butt and misses I have at least a technical foul.

It does say arms JR. Last I checked the elbow is part of the arm. The intent of the rule for swinging is to avoid a kid taking one in the chops by a kid creating space by moving their elbows and not their body.

[/B][/QUOTE]Then why would the FED specifically separate the two- arms and elbows- in the rules if they actually meant for them to be treated the same? The language in rule 9-13 says <i>"A player shall not excessively swing his/her arms OR elbows"</i>. The key word is "or". The intent of the "player-control", "flagrant" and "intentional" personal foul definitions are to give us alternatives to a violation when contact is actually made with the elbow. To call that contact a "fight" is just a complete stretch, imo, and I don't think that that is what the fighting rules were intended for. You are right, though, in that the language is hazy, and could possibly be interpreted in different ways. I'd just hate to see anyone call a missed elbow a "fight", even though R4-18-1 says that contact does not necessarily have to be made for a "fight" to happen.

Agreed %100...and guess what, NFHS R4-18-1 dosen't say anything about HEADS either...but if a kid throws a head butt and misses I have at least a technical foul. [/B][/QUOTE]I think that this is where your individual judgement comes in. The rules can't possibly cover every single, possible act. An attempted "head butt" has to be an unsporting act definitely, imo also. The problem with using R4-18-1 instead of R4-19-4 or 5(b) for that attempted head butt is that, if you use 4-18, you HAVE to call that missed head butt a "flagrant" act and thus you also have to run the headbutter,- whereas if you use the definition of a technical foul in R4-19, you can then use either R4-19-4 or R4-19-5(b) to judge the act as being flagrant or not.

Well, the word "fight" may be a stretch but I recall that the swinging of the arms/elbows was a POE illustration with contact and without contact (again, no book available) and the connotation was not centered around fighting but moreso along the lines of safety, prevention, sportsmanship.


Sorry for chiming in without my rules handy but it is a lazy Friday at work. I don't want to remove all doubt by opening my mouth...he he he

I think that this is where your individual judgement comes in. The rules can't possibly cover every single, possible act. An attempted "head butt" has to be an unsporting act definitely, imo also. The problem with using R4-18-1 instead of R4-19-4 or 5(b) for that attempted head butt is that, if you use 4-18, you HAVE to call that missed head butt a "flagrant" act and thus you also have to run the headbutter,- whereas if you use the definition of a technical foul in R4-19, you can then use either R4-19-4 or R4-19-5(b) to judge the act as being flagrant or not. [/B][/QUOTE]

...and I agree with that statement %100 also JR.

Rob, this is the quote from the "Comments on the 2002-03 Rules Revisions" when the missed elbow was changed from a "T" to a violation- <i>"If a player makes contact with an opponent while excessively swinging the arm(s)/elbow(s), the official still has several options: a player control foul, an intentional foul or a flagrant foul. The specific act should be determined by the severity of the act and player intent (based on official's judgement)"</i>. Iow, each official can use their own judgement to make the appropriate call and keep the game under control. If the player doesn't make contact, you still do have the option of calling the act flagrant without having to classify it as a "fight"- i.e. Rule 4-19-4--<i>"A flagrant foul may be.....a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct"</i>. That rule will cover your butt also if you absolutely feel that the "elbower" has to go. Jmo, but that's usually a stretch too. A normal "T" will usually get the idea across, if you want to use that route.

Then why would the FED specifically separate the two- arms and elbows- in the rules if they actually meant for them to be treated the same? The language in rule 9-13 says <i>"A player shall not excessively swing his/her arms OR elbows"</i>. The key word is "or". The intent of the "player-control", "flagrant" and "intentional" personal foul definitions are to give us alternatives to a violation when contact is actually made with the elbow. To call that contact a "fight" is just a complete stretch, imo, and I don't think that that is what the fighting rules were intended for. You are right, though, in that the language is hazy, and could possibly be interpreted in different ways. I'd just hate to see anyone call a missed elbow a "fight", even though R4-18-1 says that contact does not necessarily have to be made for a "fight" to happen. [/B][/QUOTE]

Try this play:

B1 grabs A1 from behind, foul. A1 says," Get off me!" and throws his elbow back and up at B1's head, but misses. Is that not fighting under the definition of attempting to strike an opponent? For me I can't see how that is different than A1 throwing a punch.

I agree with that interp. Throwing one elbow toward the face is different than the excessive swinging of the elbows referred to in the rules. But an elbow to get free is kind of like a push to get free at times, and I don't think that if the push free was all tha transpired that you'd be booting somebody for fighting.

So I would just say that you need to be sure what you have before you go with the extreme call of a fighting flagrant on a thrown elbow. But if you are sure, I think you should call it.

Agreed. That is what I was getting at and it is what I normally apply when I come across the "swinging elbow non-contact deemed to be excessive motion". Usually the message delivered by the T will be enough to keep the spirited play in check before any escalation occurs.

B1 grabs A1 from behind, foul. A1 says," Get off me!" and throws his elbow back and up at B1's head, but misses. Is that not fighting under the definition of attempting to strike an opponent? For me I can't see how that is different than A1 throwing a punch.
[/B][/QUOTE]The difference, imo, is the can of worms that you just opened up. Yeah, you could probably technically classify that act as a "fight" under the language of R4-18-1. If you do want to classify that as a "fight" however, that act now becomes an automatic flagrant foul plus an ejection. Now, if someone else throws an elbow that doesn't hit anyone later on in the game, it's pretty much guaranteed that you're gonna have a coach jumping up and down, pointing his finger, and hollering "FIGHT" at you. Especially if that coach's player was the one that you threw out for "fighting" earlier. Imo, you just painted yourself into a corner when it comes to how the call could be classified. I don't care what explanation you come up with trying to explain why this elbow is a violation and not a "fight", but the last one really was a "fight", you aren't gonna convince that coach. It's become a simple matter of "consistency" to them. However, if you just use R4-19-4 or R4-19-5 instead, you can then judge each separate act as to whether it was flagrant or not, without having to get into a "must eject" mode.