Thrown Elbow - Live Ball vs. Dead Ball

[rfp]

Just so I'm clear, an unsportsmanlike thrown elbow will be called differently depending on whether the ball is live or dead?

For example, players A1 and B1 are fighting for a held ball between them. Either a) before the held ball whistle is blown or b) after the held ball whistle is blown, player A1 throws a non-flagrant elbow that connects with B1's torso.

In a), since the ball is live, a technical foul cannot be called. If it is non-flagrant, the only choice left is an intentional foul

In b), since the ball is dead, I can have an unsportsmanlike technical foul called.

Is that right? Seems like the same infraction one second before or after the whistle causes a different call to be made.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by rfp

Just so I'm clear, an unsportsmanlike thrown elbow will be called differently depending on whether the ball is live or dead?

For example, players A1 and B1 are fighting for a held ball between them. Either a) before the held ball whistle is blown or b) after the held ball whistle is blown, player A1 throws a non-flagrant elbow that connects with B1's torso.

In a), since the ball is live, a technical foul cannot be called. If it is non-flagrant, the only choice left is an intentional foul

In b), since the ball is dead, I can have an unsportsmanlike technical foul called.

Is that right? Seems like the same infraction one second before or after the whistle causes a different call to be made.

No, in both situations.

a) No, it can't be a T unless it's the beginning of a fight. But an intentional foul is not the "only choice." It could easily be just a common foul.

b) It's an intentional technical foul, not an unsporting technical foul. Unsporting = non-contact, intentional T = contact.

As for your whistle issue, if there's no contact, there isn't going to be a whistle. If a foul does occur and a whistle sounds, then yes it's a T.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by rfp

Just so I'm clear, an unsportsmanlike thrown elbow will be called differently depending on whether the ball is live or dead?

I know I'm picking nits, but in the rulebook, there's no such thing as an unsportsmanlike foul. It's an unsporting foul; and unsporting fouls are always non-contact by definition (4-19-14).

So to answer your question: no, an unsporting foul will not be called differently depending the status of the ball. Unsporting fouls are always technical in nature. If he swings the elbow intentionally and misses, then you could have an unsporting foul (probably flagrant since it's an attempt to strike an opponent).

If he swings the elbow and connects, now it could be personal (live ball) or technical (dead ball). Whether it's a common, intentional or flagrant foul will be up to the official's judgment.

[Ignats75]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

I If he swings the elbow intentionally and misses, then you could have an unsporting foul (probably flagrant since it's an attempt to strike an opponent).

I wouldn't make it flagrant unless the foul does cause injury because it was not violent or savage. {4-19-4} However, some officials would use the next sentence in that citation: A technical non-contact foul which displays unacceptable behavior.

Ejecting the player for a swung and missed elbow would be an extreme measure IMHO. Since the ejection would cause him/her to miss the next two games, there should probably be some other mitigating issues before I would take that action (and in Ohio, cause me to do paperwork ). Is this a game that has a history of trouble? Do these teams have a history of this kind of action, or is it an isolated incident? This would be, as many things are, a game management issue.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

As for your whistle issue, if there's no contact, there isn't going to be a whistle. If a foul does occur and a whistle sounds, then yes it's a T.

This doesn't apply to the OP. In that case, there would be a whistle even if there was no contact, because there was a held ball. The question has to do with the relationship between the whistle for the held ball, and the contact. If the contact occured before the held-ball whistle, then the foul called ofr that contact is either an intentional personal or a common foul. If the contact is after the whistle, it's a technical foul. Right?

[Ignats75]

I would agree with that assessment Rainmaker.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

Ejecting the player for a swung and missed elbow would be an extreme measure IMHO.

In your honest opinion, the NFHS would agree.

Originally Posted by Ignats75

Since the ejection would cause him/her to miss the next two games, there should probably be some other mitigating issues before I would take that action (and in Ohio, cause me to do paperwork ).

See local details. In my state, the ejection would cause a one game suspension.

Originally Posted by Ignats75

Is this a game that has a history of trouble? Do these teams have a history of this kind of action, or is it an isolated incident? This would be, as many things are, a game management issue.

Items like these are things that should have been discussed in your pre-game.

[Junker]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

I wouldn't make it flagrant unless the foul does cause injury because it was not violent or savage.

I agree with your post mostly, I wouldn't go looking for an ejection,but there are game situations where I might call tthis flagrant for game management sakes. I can see a situation where you've have a bunch of ugly, hard fouls, players obviously getting upset with each other and such. In this case I may go flagrant just to keep anything really major from happnening. I just don't think you can use a blanket statement on this one. Strange things can happen in games.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

I wouldn't make it flagrant unless the foul does cause injury because it was not violent or savage. {4-19-4} However, some officials would use the next sentence in that citation: A technical non-contact foul which displays unacceptable behavior.

Ejecting the player for a swung and missed elbow would be an extreme measure IMHO.

The rule that Chuck was referring to is rule 4-18. Article 1 says that you can have a flagrant foul if it's an attempt to strike an opponent regardless of whether contact is made or not. Article 2 says that if the missed elbow leads to retaliation by fighting, the missed elbow is regarded as a flagrant act for instigating the fight.

[rfp]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

a) No, it can't be a T unless it's the beginning of a fight.

A thrown elbow couldn't be the beginning of a fight? Of course it could, which is why the official jumps in immediately with an intentional-personal or unsporting technical foul depending on the time of the foul relative to the whistle.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

This doesn't apply to the OP. In that case, there would be a whistle even if there was no contact, because there was a held ball. The question has to do with the relationship between the whistle for the held ball, and the contact. If the contact occured before the held-ball whistle, then the foul called ofr that contact is either an intentional personal or a common foul. If the contact is after the whistle, it's a technical foul. Right?

I was speaking in general terms, with regard to his statement, "Seems like the same infraction one second before or after the whistle causes a different call to be made."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rfp

A thrown elbow couldn't be the beginning of a fight? Of course it could, which is why the official jumps in immediately with an intentional-personal or unsporting technical foul depending on the time of the foul relative to the whistle.

Yes, it could be the beginning of a fight. But it couldn't ever be a technical foul of some kind, as you say. There was live-ball contact on the play. That has to be a personal foul of some type, as per rule 4-19-1. It happened before the whistle blew. Technical fouls during a live ball have to be non-contact fouls, as per rule 4-19-5. Iow, BktBallRef was completely correct.

[rfp]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yes, it could be the beginning of a fight. But it couldn't ever be a technical foul of some kind, as you say. There was live-ball contact on the play. That has to be a personal foul of some type, as per rule 4-19-1. It happened before the whistle blew. Technical fouls during a live ball have to be non-contact fouls, as per rule 4-19-5. Iow, BktBallRef was completely correct.

I understand. The only part of BktBallRef's response I disagree with is his comment that it couldn't be a T unless it's the beginning of a fight. As long as the ball was live when the contact started, it sounds like it can never be a T.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

I wouldn't make it flagrant unless the foul does cause injury because it was not violent or savage. {4-19-4} However, some officials would use the next sentence in that citation: A technical non-contact foul which displays unacceptable behavior.

I'm just going to reiterate (iterate?) what JR said. The rule justification for ejecting the player is not in 4-19, as you have mentioned. It's in the definition of fighting (4-18), which partially defines fighting as "the attempt to strike" an opponent with the arm(s) -- which of course, includes the elbow. So intentionally throwing the elbow in an attempt to hit an opponent is fighting, and therefore flagrant, and therefore a DQ.

[Chess Ref]

Live ball.Player A attempts to strike Player B, I judge this to be a flagrant act. What mechanics would I use since I can't issue a Technical ?