Sitch.....
Both teams in bonus
A1 controls rebound and is called for "Excessive Swinging of Elbows" based on official's mechanic when reporting foul.
How do you penalize this???

Forgive the simplistic question, I'm ....

Excessive swinging of the elbows is not a foul. If I called that, I'd give the ball to B at the closest spot out of bounds.

It was (corredtly) deemed a foul as the axis of movement was the shoulders, not full body movement.
Conceding it was indeed a foul, what penalty would you invoke??

Was there contact with the opponent? This is a determining factor.

no contact = no foul

yes,contact. Foul called correctly, with even the correct mechanic, as stipulated in my original post.

How do you penalize this foul??

[Edited by justacoach on Jul 9th, 2004 at 12:21 AM]

If A1 has the ball its a player control foul. Give B the ball.

Coach, if a foul was called, then the "swinging the elbows" signal was the wrong signal. That signal is for a violation only, not a foul. The correct signal for a foul would be the hand-behind-the-head player control foul signal. If you deemed the elbow as excessive contact of a violent nature, you could call the contact a flagrant personal foul too, but that one is usually reserved for the cases where the elbow gets up in the head or face of the defender, and you think that it's deliberate.

Right on, JR. This is why I was confused by the coach's post. He insisted that the mechanic given was correct (which it wasn't), but then he didn't know what foul, and hence penalty, had been called. He should have been able to tell that by the mechanic given. If the correct mechanic had been given he would have known this info. Hopefully, he will now accept that the official gave the wrong signal and that is why he is now asking us this question.

FWIW I'll add that the foul could also have been called intentional.
When the violation was introduced to NFHS rules in the 2002-03 rules book, there was a comment on page 71 that addressed what the proper call would be if contact was made.

It says in part, "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 call should be determined by the severity of the act and player intent (based on official's judgment)."


[Edited by Nevadaref on Jul 9th, 2004 at 04:56 AM]

no contact=no foul..........

I dont agree with this equation, an elbow can be like a punch and does not have to connect to be a foul (if you were making a blanket equation). Even with no contact you can make an USC call.



[Edited by Robmoz on Jul 9th, 2004 at 11:37 AM]

You can't call it a pc foul. Your scenario would be a technical foul, which is not included with the equation above.

Actually Snag it would not be a Technical foul
 

I had this on another post. If there is no contact and the ball is live, you can't call it technical. You can call it flagrant and throw him out.

Re: Actually Snag it would not be a Technical foul
 

Actually Damian, you've got this mixed up... If there is contact and the ball is live it can't be technical, it is by definition personal, either common, intentional, or flagrant. However, if there is NO contact then it can be deemed unsportsmanlike, which is technical in nature.

Re: Re: Actually Snag it would not be a Technical foul
 

You cannot call a T for this act anymore.

If there is contact all you can call is a PC Foul, a Flagrant or Intentional Fouls.

If there is no contact, then all you have is a violation. They changed that rule about 2 years ago.

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Actually Snag it would not be a Technical foul
 

Rut,
They've gone and changed the context here. Damian and Rob are talking about fighting. If the elbow looks like a punch, you could conceivably call a flagrant T (even during a live ball) if it misses. Just as you would a failed punch.

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.

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. [/B][/QUOTE]

Why should we care what the coach is going to say later. If we deem the act as a fight, i.e. the player meant to strike the player, than I'm penalizing the act based on the act. I'm not taking the easy way out, just to cover my butt later, in case another player swings their elbows.

If you deem it as flagrant under 4-19-4 you still eject them, so what is the difference? You will still have the same problem with the coach later on if another player swings their elbows.

Why should we care what the coach is going to say later. If we deem the act as a fight, i.e. the player meant to strike the player, than I'm penalizing the act based on the act. I'm not taking the easy way out, just to cover my butt later, in case another player swings their elbows.

If you deem it as flagrant under 4-19-4 you still eject them, so what is the difference? You will still have the same problem with the coach later on if another player swings their elbows. [/B][/QUOTE]The difference is that I don't HAVE to deem it flagrant. You do if you call it a fight. I can judge each elbow on it's merits, and I'm not gonna be second-guessed on every missed elbow from then on. And that's certainly not taking the easy way out either. If I think that the act was flagrant, then it's buh-bye. But I'm not painting myself into a corner on every run-of-the-mill missed elbow violation. Once you call a missed elbow "fighting" however, the coach is gonna want EVERY missed elbow called the same way.

Obviously, you disagree. We'll just have to leave it that way.

The difference is that I don't HAVE to deem it flagrant. You do if you call it a fight. I can judge each elbow on it's merits, and I'm not gonna be second-guessed on every missed elbow from then on. And that's certainly not taking the easy way out either. If I think that the act was flagrant, then it's buh-bye. But I'm not painting myself into a corner on every run-of-the-mill missed elbow violation. Once you call a missed elbow "fighting" however, the coach is gonna want EVERY missed elbow called the same way.

Obviously, you disagree. We'll just have to leave it that way. [/B][/QUOTE]

Where did I say EVERY missed elbow was fighting?

I said I can see an elbow used in a way that does not fall under "swinging", but does under "fighting". Again, I could not care less if the coach would want every call ruled the same way. Consistency is not black and white, one missed elbow is an apple and another could be an orange. If one falls under fighting, it's fighting. I'm not injecting the next one, that might occur, nor the coaches reaction into my decision.

Where did I say EVERY missed elbow was fighting?

I said I can see an elbow used in a way that does not fall under "swinging", but does under "fighting". Again, I could not care less if the coach would want every call ruled the same way. Consistency is not black and white, one missed elbow is an apple and another could be an orange. If one falls under fighting, it's fighting. I'm not injecting the next one, that might occur, nor the coaches reaction into my decision. [/B][/QUOTE]As I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Personally, I would NEVER call a missed elbow "fighting". Might deem it a flagrant act under some special circumstances, but never "fighting".

10-13-3 (long)
 

Thanks for the enlightenment. I am always astounded at the deep and complete understanding of the rules nuances espoused by the esteemed members of this board. Could it be some of you are also Talmudic scholars or have benefit of training from Jesuit logicians??

I frequently refer officials to this board in the hope they can be motivated to improve their game.

We have always taught our players to chin the ball with elbows extended and to pivot away from pressure. We further explain that swinging elbows faster than the rest of the body is dangerous and is to be avoided both from a safety aspect and to avoid the draconian penalty that had been in force from '90's.
I was very interested in the points raised by the POE in 2002-2003 and thought I had a good handle on how this was to be treated. It was at this time that I determined to gain a closer acquaintance with the actual FED Rules book and also happened upon this discussion group.

What I have learned from this discussion

1. The horizontal elbow jerk mechanic can only denote a violation. I have often seen it used in my area when reporting a foul to the table. If a foul is deemed to have occurred it can only be one of the following...
P/C, Intentional or Flagrant, based on the judgement of the official as to severity. Ergo swinging of the arms/elbows that results in slight contact should be construed as P/C foul. Greater force may escalate it to intentional or flagrant.

2. As specified in 10-13-3, our long-time coaching points seem to be validated

SECTION 13 EXCESSIVE SWINGING OF ARM(S)/ELBOW(S)
ART. 1 . . . A player shall not excessively swing his/her arms(s) or elbows, even without contacting an opponent.
ART. 2 . . . A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or against the body.
ART. 3 . . . Action of arm(s) and elbow(s) resulting from total body movements as in pivoting or movement of the ball incidental to feinting with it, releasing it, or moving it to prevent a held ball or loss of control shall not be considered excessive.

I am still in a quandary about Art. 3 above. The circumstances where we drill our players to chin the ball and pivot are involved with defensive rebounding.

If the defense is swarming my rebounder and attacking the ball, my player is going to chin and pivot to prevent a held ball.
What if, in the course of his full body pivot with elbows extended, he should make significant contact with one of the swarming defenders?

Please give me guidelines that you use in this situation.
Are his "total body movements"s with arms and elbows tolerated in light of 10-13-3 and does the defense have a greater duty to avoid contact??
I seem to be running into a majority of officials who have a glancing familiarity with the POE but who never read all the way down to Art. 3

Again, thanks for your guidance

I have a ready-made excuse...


I'm

justacoach

Re: 9-13-3 (long)
 

Coach, the correct rule is 9-13, not 10-13.

Hopefully this will help; take a look at p's 70&71 in the rulebook- the ones labelled "Rough Play- Guidelines for Teaching and Officiating". Under "C-Post Play", note the language used:
1) <i>"When the offensive player then uses the swim stroke, pushes, pins, elbows, forearms, hold, clears with the body, or just demonstrates rough physical movement, this is a foul on the offensive plasyer and must be called without warning"</i>.
2) <i>"The defense can establish a legal, vertical stance or position on the side, front or behind the offensive player"</i>

5) <i> "When a player uses hands, forearms or ELBOWS to prevent an opponent maintaining a LEGAL position, IT IS A FOUL."</i>

Once the defender has established a legal position on the floor, the player with the ball cannot then legally dislodge that defender from his legal position. That includes the player with the ball pivoting into the defender, and making contact with an elbow.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jul 10th, 2004 at 10:19 AM]

Re: 10-13-3 (long)
 

That's true only if the player has control of the ball (as is usually the case).

If the player doesn't have the ball, it'c can't be a PC foul, but can be (just) a common foul.

Re: Re: 9-13-3 (long)
 

Coach -- As long it was pivoting, and involves body movement, it's just a PC foul, if anything. the elbows aren't in the "cylinder of verticality" when they are extended and the ball is chinned. Furthermore, the player is allowed to move the ball around with elbows extended, and the motion will not be considered an "elbows" violation, but contact that displaces the opponent, or hampers normal defensive movements could still be a foul.

rainmaker
The only point I would make is that the elbow being outside the body makes no difference in this case. If the offensive player pivots into the defensive player, regardless of what makes contact, that player is committing a PC foul. If the defender has LGP, it doesn't matter how the offensive player makes the contact, it is still illegal.

That's what I was trying to say, as regards any contact. But also, if there's no contact, and the ball-handler is trying to "feint, release or move the ball to avoid a held ball" , then there's no violation. The omvement of the ball is the point, in the case of deciding whether to call a violation. Contact is the point in deciding whether to call a foul.

Does everyone agree with these outcomes under NFHS rules:

B1 establishes LGP between A1 and basket. B1 is completely vertical, A1 raises ball above head for try and, before release, A1 elbows B1 in the chopps, B1 falls to the floor, then A1's try fails. Blood & tears flow as B1 first attempts to continue play. A1's secont try succeeds and B1 voluntarilly leaves court.

M:Goal counts.

B2 drives past center court and is tackled by A2 and knocked to the floor.

M:Blocking.

B2 drives towards basket and is tackled by A2 and knocked to the floor.

M:Blocking.

All occur in first 4 minutes of game. B1 and B2, respectively, appear to be teams best inside and outside players.

Last question, same game: A1 and B1 collide after loose ball. Both players fall, A1 stays down, play continues with A1's team in possession. After missed try, B1 obtains possession and drives back to basket where A1 is still horizontal.

M:Stop clock.

I don't.

Yikes.
I don't agree.

Mod,
OMQ,

With which outcome do you find a problem?

MOD??? I don't know bob particularly well, but Mod doesn't match what I do know of him. Plaid pants, paisley shirt, peace symbol medallion, large 'fro... Somehow it just doesn't fit.

As a matter of fact, justacoach, yes, on the Jesuit part. I went to Georgetown University.

We officials appreciate those coaches who try to understand the finer points of the rules and teach their players to play a better game.

1 -- probably a PC foul (could be intentional or flagrant) (depends on the meaning of "elbows")

2 & 3 -- probably intentional or flagrant (depends on the meaning of "tackles")

4 -- might be okay depending on the type of attempt A had and whether A1 could be injured now that the ball is back at B's end of the court.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins
[B]1 -- probably a PC foul (could be intentional or flagrant) (depends on the meaning of "elbows")

As A1 raises ball above head, A1's elbow smacks B1 in the chops. My angle hides this contact, but it must have occured. I see B1 dislodged, fall to ground, then rise bloodied and in tears.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins
[B]2 & 3 -- probably intentional or flagrant (depends on the meaning of "tackles")

A2 leaps on the back of B2, A2 wraps arms around B2's arms (stripping ball)and both B2 and A2 fall to the gound.

B obtains possession from rebound off backboard. A2 is well beyond the arc and to the side opposite play.

If A1 is injured and there is not a fast break for his team. I'm stopping the clock before they run any kind of offense. Not sure why they'd make A run their offense and take a shot before stopping the clock.

As for the tackle, as you describe it. I've at least got an intentional (probably a flagrant), but I'd have to see it.

On second thought. I might be able to justify 15 yards for roughing the dribbler.

As for the tackle, as you describe it. I've at least got an intentional (probably a flagrant), but I'd have to see it.

Further about the tackle, the same defensive player makes two such moves against the same offesive player within the first 4 minutes of the game.

I'd also be curious about any thoughts on the elbow. That occurred between the two tackles and involved post players.

If the first one had been called an intentional, the 2nd one may not have happened. If I called the first one an intentional, and he proceeded to do it again, he's done. Flagrant Personal.

As for the elbow, it reads like a pc, but I'd really have to see it to say for sure.

As for the elbow, it reads like a pc, but I'd really have to see it to say for sure. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's the problem. No clear view of the contact. Assume your angle prevents you from actually seeing the elbow contact B1' chops. You see A1 raise the ball to shoot, while B1 is in LGP. Before A1 shoots, you see B1 displaced and fall as shot occurs. B1 then rises bloodied and in tears. A1's shot missed, B1 attempts to block second attempt then leaves court after second attempt succeeds.

M:Goal counts.

You can't call a foul you didn't see. If you don't see the contact, you don't know definitively how B1 got displaced and bloodied. Displacement often comes from a flop. As for the blood, it could have already happened and you didn't see it.
Bottom line, if you can't see the contact, you shouldn't call the foul.

Adam