Simple call, what's your's?

[IREFU2]

SECTION 13 EXCESSIVE SWINGING OF ARM(S)/ELBOW(S)
ART. 1 . . . A player shall not excessively swing his/her arms(s) or elbow(s), 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.

PENALTY: (Section 13) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. (See 6-7-9 Exception 4)

[SmokeEater]

I've seen this many times with JV and Middle school kids. They start pivoting and swinging there arms to avoid getting tied up. I have called PC foul, defensive contact fouls and even just a violation for the action. Like it has been said already it depends on the situation.

[tjones1]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Rule 4, section 19
ART. 13 . . . An unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical or dishonorable conduct.

This is the only call that can be made for swinging and missing with a punch or an elbow that was meant to strike in the same manner.



Yes if you deemed it that, but no contact in this case I've got a violation, not an unsporting foul.

The key is that there was no contact on the play, so a personal foul cannot be called.

Seems odd that the penalty is more severe for swinging and missing than for actually hitting the opponent during a live ball.

[refTN]

I refer everyone to IRefU2 because he has the call exactly right. And another thing and this is just for information purposes how can you not have a T while the ball is live?

[refTN]

One more thing. Is an intentional personal and an intentional technical not penalized the same way. Same with flagrant personal and technical. On that note where is the ball inbounded in this case because a technical is division line and intentional is spot nearest the foul. What about an intentional Technical.

Are all these just technicalities as far as whether I call an intentional personal or an intentional Technical, and a personal or technical flagrant.

[Adam]

IMO, if the contact would have been a PC, and he misses, then I'm going with a violation. If the contact would have been a flagrant, and he misses, I'm sticking with the flagrant. If it's a T, then contact isn't relevant.

You can't go with a T for a miss when contact would have only been a PC.

[Adam]

Originally posted by refTN
One more thing. Is an intentional personal and an intentional technical not penalized the same way. Same with flagrant personal and technical. On that note where is the ball inbounded in this case because a technical is division line and intentional is spot nearest the foul. What about an intentional Technical.

Are all these just technicalities as far as whether I call an intentional personal or an intentional Technical, and a personal or technical flagrant.

Penalties are the same. The only time you'd even call it an intentional technical is on a dead ball contact foul that would have normally simply been an intentional personal. Administratively, it's no different than if a player had reached across the OOB plane to slap the ball away on a throwin. Two shots and the ball at the division line. Note there are no penalties listed for an "intentional technical." That's because it's just considered a technical foul. I don't know that the phrase "intentional technical" occurs anywhere in the Fed rule book.