Elbow during live ball

[brianp134]

The only way you can have a technical foul, is if the ball is dead. If I read it correctly, the ball was live, therefore it should be an intentional foul.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
With all due respect to TH and MTD, I think that an unsporting T CAN be called if you are penalizing the "unfair, unethical or dishonorable conduct" that precedes the contact. This has nothing to do with contact (even if it occurs because of this act)or excessive elbows. For example, if a player intentionally planted an elbow against someone's face, you would probably eject? What if this same action had missed? Ejection? Violation? You know the play where the player swings his elbow around in the air in an intimidating manner? Violation only?

Consider an off ball situation where opponents are in a joust, and one of them ends it by just shoving the other player off. That's a T and it not because of the contact but because of the act itself. One player pokes another in the chest with his finger in a menancing manner. Forget the contact and penalize the dishonorable conduct. Just because an act involves an elbow, I am not limiting myself only to an excessive elbow call and the resulting penalties.

Before you jump all over me for my opinion and ask for Rules support, please see 4-19-13.

IMHO

Mulk

Go back to Rule 4 and read the definition of personal foul. Unless you rule the foul to be a fighting foul, a contact foul while the ball is live is always a personal foul.

MTD, Sr.

[ronny mulkey]

MTD,

Go back and read my post. Penalize the intimidating act - not the resulting contact. I tried to be very clear that just because an ACT involved an elbow, it does not prevent me from exercising an unsporting technical foul option.

Again, IMHO.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
With all due respect to TH and MTD, I think that an unsporting T CAN be called if you are penalizing the "unfair, unethical or dishonorable conduct" that precedes the contact. This has nothing to do with contact (even if it occurs because of this act)or excessive elbows.

For example, if a player intentionally planted an elbow against someone's face, you would probably eject? What if this same action had missed? Ejection? Violation? You know the play where the player swings his elbow around in the air in an intimidating manner? Violation only?

Consider an off ball situation where opponents are in a joust, and one of them ends it by just shoving the other player off. That's a T and it not because of the contact but because of the act itself.

One player pokes another in the chest with his finger in a menancing manner. Forget the contact and penalize the dishonorable conduct. Just because an act involves an elbow, I am not limiting myself only to an excessive elbow call and the resulting penalties.

Before you jump all over me for my opinion and ask for Rules support, please see 4-19-13.

IMHO

Mulk

If you use only 4-19-13 then there are a lot of things you could apply. But when consulting additional rules you may find they fall under another category. Rule 10 describes the criteria we use to define such "unfair, unethical or dishonorable conduct.

Rule 10-3-8 concerns TEAM unsporting fouls.
Rule 10-3-7 concerns PLAYER unsporting fouls.
Rule 10-4-1 concerns BENCH unsporting fouls.

Intentional elbow to face? My options are:
1 Intentional PERSONAL foul.
2. Flagrant PERSONAL foul. Ejection. (I would call this one)

Excessive swinging elbows but miss?
Yes this is a vioaltion ONLY.
Quoting Rule 4-24-8 It is not legal to swing arms and elbows excessively. This occurs when:
a. ....
b. The AGRESSIVENESS with which the arms and elbows are swung COULD CAUSE INJURY to another player if contacted.

Using this description as a basis, an official will promptly and unhesitatingly call such action with arms and elbows a VIOLATION.

As a side note if you determine that the excessively swinging elbow constituted FIGHTING (10-3-8, 4-18-1&2) whether there was contact or not then assess the flagrant Technical Foul. It also fits defintion given in 4-19-13.

Don't know what you mean by jousting so let me respond with several scenarios. If jousting means contact by both players then since a live ball it is not a T unless the jousting is so severe you determine them to be fighting then assess both a flagrant T. If unsure to call it a fight yet you feel actions to be so severe to warrant ejection then call a Double Flagrant PERSONAL foul. Otherwise you have a double person foul.

If the jousting involves both engaged verbal sparring then by all means this fits the definition of unsporting technicals on both players. If your whistle was before the final shove then you have to assess an intentional technical foul which also results in ejection of that player. If the first player taunts verbally causing second to shove him away the you have an unsporting Techical on first player and an intentional foul on second

The finger poke again fits the definition of Unsporting technical as that is action which fall under 10-3-7b & c.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
MTD,

Go back and read my post. Penalize the intimidating act - not the resulting contact. I tried to be very clear that just because an ACT involved an elbow, it does not prevent me from exercising an unsporting technical foul option.

Again, IMHO.

Ronny:

But your logic is wrong. The illegal act is the entire act and that is the illegal contact by A1 against B1. You cannot charge A1 with a unsportsmanlike technical foul because he started to swing his elbow at B1. You have to see the entire play.

MTD, Sr.

[ronny mulkey]

MTD,

I think that most elbow plays should be treated as an excessive elbow. But, there are plays where the act should be penalized. I think you see excessive elbow and I see an intimidating act. Billy Bad *** has just thrown an elbow that did not connect. My point is that not all acts involving an elbow has to be classified as an excessive elbow. If the entire play does not result in contact, then you could have an intimidating elbow that you are only going to treat as a violation? And, that's because you only want to put it into a category (excessive elbow) that might not fit every time.

If I take my elbow (no swing) and put it up under your chin in a menancing threatening manner (not roughly, not much contact)then you would not have any call?

Again, I see this particular play as much worse than poking a finger in my chest, pushing me off because of frustration, or even taunting. Unsporting technical is an option afforded me by 4-19-13.

Mulk

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
MTD,

I think that most elbow plays should be treated as an excessive elbow. But, there are plays where the act should be penalized. I think you see excessive elbow and I see an intimidating act. Billy Bad *** has just thrown an elbow that did not connect. My point is that not all acts involving an elbow has to be classified as an excessive elbow. If the entire play does not result in contact, then you could have an intimidating elbow that you are only going to treat as a violation? And, that's because you only want to put it into a category (excessive elbow) that might not fit every time.

If I take my elbow (no swing) and put it up under your chin in a menancing threatening manner (not roughly, not much contact)then you would not have any call?

Again, I see this particular play as much worse than poking a finger in my chest, pushing me off because of frustration, or even taunting. Unsporting technical is an option afforded me by 4-19-13.

Mulk

Ronny:

Go back and read all of NFHS R4-S19. You will see definitions of the two major categories of fouls: personal and technical. Personal fouls are of four types: common fouls (including player control fouls), intentional fouls, flagrant fouls, and fouls that are committed against a player in the act of shooting. Technical fouls are also are also can be intentional, flagrant, and those that are neither intentional nor flagrant. Unsportsmanlike fouls are also defined. The technical foul section of Rule 10 also gives more information concerning what are technical fouls.

The situation you described: A1 swinging his elbow and missing B1 is not that same as A1 swinging his elbow and NOT missing B1. In the later, A1 is guilty of a personal foul: common (player control), intentional, or flagrant. In the former, the official has to decide if A1's act is a violation (excessively swinging his elbows), and I should add here that excessively swinging one's elbows without making contact was made an infraction (orginally a violation in both NFHS and NCAA, then a technical foul in NFHS and still a violation in NCAA, and then back to a violation in both NFHS and NCAA) because it was an act that would intimidate a defender from attempting to play defense for fear of getting hit by the offensive player's elbows. If, in the official's judgement, A1 was attempting to hit B1 in the face with his elbow but missed, then A1 is guilty of a flagrant technical foul. My question to you is to tell the group why this is a flagrant technical foul.

MTD, Sr.

[ronny mulkey]

My question is why couldn't an intimidating act be an unsporting technical foul? What do you call on the player that pokes another in the chest with his finger in a menancing manner during a live ball?

Finally, are you telling me that the rules do not allow an official the flexibility to judge acts to be unsporting? As in
10.3.7 that states "this includes, but not limited to".

Mulk

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
My question is why couldn't an intimidating act be an unsporting technical foul? What do you call on the player that pokes another in the chest with his finger in a menancing manner during a live ball?

Finally, are you telling me that the rules do not allow an official the flexibility to judge acts to be unsporting? As in
10.3.7 that states "this includes, but not limited to".

Mulk

What's wrong with intentional? If the kid plans and carefully aims the elbow, why not call it flagrant?

[bigzilla]

So, a defensive player grabs rebound, chins ball, and pivots to look up court. In doing so, she plants elbow squarely in face of opponent, who was facing her but doing little other than watching, knocking her down. I called it a pc. Coach says "that's just good basketball. We teach chinning the ball." Should this have been incidental?

And regarding excessive, what about the over zealous rebounder who takes a couple of swings when all the opponents are already heading down court...no one was even pressuring her. Would you still call a violation when she was basically swinging at thin air? I didn't. Coach wanted it.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by bigzilla
So, a defensive player grabs rebound, chins ball, and pivots to look up court. In doing so, she plants elbow squarely in face of opponent, who was facing her but doing little other than watching, knocking her down. I called it a pc. Coach says "that's just good basketball. We teach chinning the ball." Should this have been incidental?

Incidental?? When the defender went down?? If coach seriously thinks that's "just good basketball", then he needs to get a clue. Like "boxing out". If there's contact, and displacement, it's a foul. Period.

[johnnyrao]

I know this is not in accordance with the rule book but we were instructed prior to the season that the state association decided that excessively swinging elbows and making contact is assessed as a technical foul. I do not know the reason they were using. Having read all the responses here I will ask prior to next season for an interpetation. Personally, I would prefer intentional since you get the same result as a T (2 shots plus the ball) and, for some reason, coaches and fans seem to react better to an itentional than a T, IMO.

[ronny mulkey]

Rao,

How many intentionals can a player have before he is DQ'd?
How many technicals can a player have before he is DQ'd (ejected)? Also, in Georgia, an ejection carries a 2 games suspension.

So, they are not the same.

Mulk

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
My question is why couldn't an intimidating act be an unsporting technical foul? What do you call on the player that pokes another in the chest with his finger in a menancing manner during a live ball?

Finally, are you telling me that the rules do not allow an official the flexibility to judge acts to be unsporting? As in
10.3.7 that states "this includes, but not limited to".

Mulk

1) An "intimidating act" could be an unsporting T.

2) The "poke" isn't "contact that prevents normal offensive or defensive manuevers" so the poke itself isn't a foul. So, here, we penalize the unsporting aspect -- T.

3) Flexibility is allowed.

In the original play, if the swing was with intent to hit / harm the other player, then it's probably a flagrant T or flagrant P (depending on whether contact was made).

If it's just a "get off of me" swing, then it's probably a violation, or PC foul (depending on whether contact was made).

(and the option for Intentional P is there for something in between.)

The rule used to be, of course, that all swings were a T. BUt the committee recognized that not all swings rise to the level of an unsporting foul, but still need to be penalized -- thus the rule change.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

1) An "intimidating act" could be an unsporting T.

2) The "poke" isn't "contact that prevents normal offensive or defensive manuevers" so the poke itself isn't a foul. So, here, we penalize the unsporting aspect -- T.

3) Flexibility is allowed.

In the original play, if the swing was with intent to hit / harm the other player, then it's probably a flagrant T or flagrant P (depending on whether contact was made).

If it's just a "get off of me" swing, then it's probably a violation, or PC foul (depending on whether contact was made).

(and the option for Intentional P is there for something in between.)

The rule used to be, of course, that all swings were a T. BUt the committee recognized that not all swings rise to the level of an unsporting foul, but still need to be penalized -- thus the rule change.

Bob:

If A1 pokes B1 in the chest, that is most certainly an intentional personal foul, at the very least, by A1; remember illegal contact while the ball is live is a personal foul. It is not incidental contact. If B1 were to retaliate, then A1's actions would be considered fighting; A1 and B1 are each charged with a flagrant technical foul (this is a double technical foul) and both A1 and B1 are disqualified for fighting.

MTD, Sr.