Doggone it, I can't find the reference I want. Perhaps it's in a past year's rule book. If so, can I please call on MTD to brave his attic and find me the cite I want?

I was doing a game on Saturday (VG) and a girl threw an elbow and made contact. I suspect she was trying to make contact, but I didn't push it. I T'd her, though. I was thinking that the rule change a year or two ago was mostly for non-contact elbows, and that we could still call a T if there was contact. Was I mis-remembering?

The change to the elbows rule is 9-13. The change basically gives you more options.

1) If it's excessive swinging with no contact, it's a violation.

2) If it's excessive swinging with no contact, but you feel the person was trying to make contact, you can give an unsporting T (or even flagrant if you feel there was intent to injure).

3) If it's excessive and there's contact, then you have a personal foul (live ball contact). It's either PC or maybe intentional/flagrant, based on the severity.

Looking at section 9-13 art 1... A player shall not excessively swing his/her arm(s) or elbow(s) even without contacting an opponent.

Penalty: The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out OOB spot nearest the violation.

I think the contact will fall under unsporting foul 10-3-8.

Rook, unsporting technical fouls are actually listed under 10-3-7.

And if you look at the definition of unsporting foul in 4-19-14, you'll see that unsporting fouls are always non-contact fouls in HS. (Different in NBA, where "Elbow Fouls" have their own category; but that's not what we're interested in. . .)

Thanks! part of the learning process. Thanks again for keeping me straight.

The phrase "even if there is no contct" is not equal to "only if there is no contact".

When there is excessive swinging that creates contact, a violation is still an option: the swinging of the elbows can make the ball dead prior to the contact.

If there is contact, you could have the option of a T if you recognize the violation, judge the ball dead, blow the whistle, then bam. Contact during a dead ball.

You could also have a personal foul if you choose not to call the violation for swinging the elbows (perhaps they were not swung that excessively) but there is still contact (live ball).

You could also have a T for an attempt to strike another player...it's the attempt that gets the T, not the contact.

There are rules to all of these options...it depends on the timing and the judegement of the official.

If there is contact, I'm coming up with some sort of foul.

I'm not good enough to split those hairs. For me, contact = personal.

I'm not good enough to split those hairs. For me, contact = personal.

Chuck, I am shocked,Why personal? That changes the perspective for me, I can swing my elbows and make contact all I get is a personal foul. would that fall under PC IYO? For me, swinging elbows violation making contact while swinging technical.

If the player has the ball, yes, it's a PC. That's not what he's disputing. What he's saying is that it's a personal foul, not a technical foul.

Sorry. Guess I should have said "For me, live ball contact = personal."

Chuck:

I want to thank you for saving me a trip up the ladder to my attic. You did a wonderful job of answering Juulie's question. I would just like to add that the rule is the same for NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's.

MTD, Sr.

If it was an intentional swing of the elbow with contact, then I would have "t" her also. I dont think you could go wrong in this type of situation, unless you call nothing.

Sigh.

Do you have a rules reference that will allow you to call a technical foul for a live-ball contact foul?

By rule, for live ball contact fouls, you can call either a team control foul, an intentional personal foul or a flagrant personal foul.

NFHS rules 4-19-1 and 4-19-5 are the references.

How about Section 19-4
ART. 4 . . . A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.

It could be deemed flagrant. Once again it would be a judgement called whether to call a "t" or violation. I guess you would have to be in the situation.

See the words outlined in red in <b>your</b> rules citation. Note that the rule says that if the foul is a technical, it must be <b>dead ball</b> contact.


You just cited a rule that completely contradicts what you're trying to assert.

Rule 4-19-5(c) sez a technical foul is an intentional or flagrant <b>contact</b> foul while the ball is <b>dead</b>. If the contact occurs during a <b>live</b> ball, it must be a personal foul as per R4-19-1.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 29th, 2005 at 09:42 AM]

I know what that rules states, I can read, what I am saying is that it could be deemed as flagrant. Lets say that the swinging of the elbow broke the nose of the player and you just call a violation, the coach would go bullistic.

The flagrant/non-flagrant point doesn't have anything to do with JR's comments. JR is trying to point out to you that if there is contact during a live ball, it's can't be a technical foul; it's a personal foul.

It can still be a flagrant personal foul. But it's personal, not technical.

Live ball contact = personal foul.
Dead ball contact or non-contact foul = technical foul.

That's all that JR is trying to say.

No, you were saying that it could be a flagrant <b>technical</b> foul. It can't be a technical, by rule. If there's live-ball contact, you can't call a technical foul. It has to be a <b>personal</b> foul of some type.

If a player swings an elbow during a live ball and misses, it's a violation. If a player swings an elbow and contacts an opponent during a live ball, then it's a personal foul of some type- your choice.

Thanks for the clarification on this matter.

It's true, it's true....

Agreed. But that has nothing to do with JR's point. See my post directly above this one.

Agreed again! :) So toss the kid. But you're missing something. Your choices aren't limited to T or violation. See my first post in this thread.

Thanks
 

Thanks for the clarification again!

Re: Thanks
 

I think I over-clarified!! But the posts came so closely together, that I didn't realize you'd already responded to my first one. Sorry!

Re: Re: Thanks
 

No problem, we are all here to help "clarify" each others post. The thing is to get the call right!

Jurassic is correct
 

Ever try to flowchart this stuff? It can be done. It's way less ponderous than reading of a list of definitions, trying to find a match.

Re: Jurassic is correct
 

What stuff? The posts and replies?

If you're talking about flow-charting the options for whether to call a violation or foul, why bother? I gave you the 3 options in my first post.

Re: Re: Jurassic is correct
 

I gues flow charting Section 19, I may try that.

I have a reference (numbers may be off...from 03-04 book):

4-18 FIGHTING
Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur <FONT COLOR=BLUE>when the ball is dead or live</FONT>. Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
ART. 1 . . . An <FONT COLOR=BLUE>attempt to strike, punch or kick an opponent with a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made</FONT>.

with

10-3 <FONT COLOR=BLUE>PLAYER TECHNICAL</FONT>
A player shall not:
ART. 10 . . . <FONT COLOR=BLUE>Be charged with fighting</FONT>.

A couple of experiences:

I had this happen in a collge game last year. The two players going for the rebound had been working hard against each other for the first several minutes of the second half. Nothing outside the lines, just bigs being bigs. Anyway, the defensive player gets the rebound, looks back and, in my opinion, measures the other player and swings an elbow that connects with the players throat. The player is taken off their feet by the contact. TWEET! I had my choice (intentional/flagrant). My call was flagrant based on the entire result of the act. No one even thought twice about it.

In another game, before the change in penalties included a violation, a player was being tightly defended when the offense made contact, nothing severe, but surely a call (PC)needed to be made to reinforce that swinging elbows is not something that will continue. Again, no one took issue with the call and the rest of the game went off without difficulty.

Not all situations are exactly the same, but having seen the plays in their entirety certainly makes all the difference in the call that you make.

We've had this discussion before, Camron. I was totally on your side on this. But I seem to remember that there was an argument on the other side that fighting could also be personal, instead of technical. Since that discussion, I've always considered live-ball fighting to be a personal foul; but now I can't remember exactly why. . . :confused:

Lemme refresh your memory....

Casebook play 10.4.5SitA---live ball fight... <b>RULING:</b> <i>A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant fouls and are disqualified, but no free throws result from the double PERSONAL foul</i>

Actual Rules Reference
 

The actual reference is from the 2002-3 rules book when the violation for excessively swinging the elbows was changed back from a tech to a violation. Under points of emphasis 4E. on page 68-9 it states:
Excess Swinging of Arm(s)/Elbow(s)
-When there is no contact with an opponenet is now a violation.
-If contact is made, the official must judge the severity of the act and possible even determine intent.
-A player control foul, an intentional foul, or a flagrant foul may be called.

Further, in the Comments on the 2002-02 Rules Revisions it states:
Penaly Changed for Excess Swinging of Arm(s)/Elbow(s) 9-13
The penalty for excess swingin of the arms or elbows has been changed back to a violation for a technical foul.....If a player makes contact with an opponent while excessively swinging the arms/elbows, 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).

Those are the options "by the book".

Mregor

Just so happened, that the 2002-3 manual is the old one I have lying in my computer desk. No attic diggin involved.

How do you reconcile the direct contradition in the definition of a fight and technical foul with the case book? They're both valid and and clear. There is no ambiguity in the rule. One is probably a misprint. Which? I can't say for sure. I don't think you can either.