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

rfp wrote
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

rfp wrote
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

ChuckElias wrote
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

BktBallRef wrote
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

Ignats75 wrote
Ejecting the player for a swung and missed elbow would be an extreme measure IMHO.

In your honest opinion, the NFHS would agree. 🙂

Ignats75 wrote
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.

Ignats75 wrote
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

Ignats75 wrote
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

Ignats75 wrote
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

BktBallRef wrote
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

rainmaker wrote
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

rfp wrote
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

Jurassic Referee wrote
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

Ignats75 wrote
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 ?

Gimlet25id

rfp wrote
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.

Not sure if the original OP in reference to a NCAA or NFHS game. If it is a NCAA Men's game the the following would apply for the dead ball contact thats deemed non flagrant.

Rule 4-26 Art. 7. (Men) Intentional technical foul. An intentional technical foul involves intentionally contacting an opponent in a non-flagrant manner when the ball is dead.

If the contact was considered severe then that would fall under

Art. 5. Flagrant technical foul, dead ball. A flagrant foul shall be a technical
foul when it involves either unsportsmanlike conduct that is extreme in
nature, or severe, excessive contact against an opponent while the ball is
dead.

If the ball is live and you deem the elbow excessive the following would apply:
"

Art. 6. When during the course of play, an individual strikes an opponent
with the hand, elbow, arm, foot, knee or leg in a non-confrontational manner
but the act is excessive or severe, it shall be ruled as a flagrant foul and not
a fighting action. When a defined body part is used to strike an opponent
but the contact is not severe or excessive, a judgment shall be made by the
official as to whether the contact is intentional.

If in your judgment it wasn't flagrant or excessive then your only options would be Intentional or personal since no player control existed.

If its a NFHS game then it would slightly different. If there was no player control before the held ball then your foul option would be personal, intentional, or flagrant. The type and severity of the contact would dictate the call.

If the ball was dead or if it happened after the whistle was blown then you now have a dead ball contact foul which will always be a technical. Either a intentional or a flagrant technical. Again the severity of the act would dictate the call. Any dead ball contact foul would always be a technical in NFHS.

bob jenkins

Chess Ref wrote
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 ?

Why can't you issue a Technical?

Gimlet25id

bob jenkins wrote
Why can't you issue a Technical?

The only thing you can call here is a Player Technical. Defined in Rule 4-18 "Art. 1.....an attempt to strike,punch, or kick an opponent with a fist, hands, arms, legs, or feet regardless of wheter contact is made."

Penalty is a player technical, found in Rule 10-3 Art. 9 "be charged with fighting."

Mregor

It's not that difficult.

Re-read Chuck's post. The only thing I'd add to it is that if there is no contact, it could also be a violation.

The rule for excessively swinging the elbow was revised several years ago and the discussion was very clear. If you have live-ball contact, it's either a common foul (PC), intentional, or flagrant. If there is no contact you can have a violation or a T. Any dead ball has to be a T.

Mregor

Adam

Okay, 4 games this year so far in two different weekends. I've called the violation twice now; on the same player in two different games. Funny thing is, I could see her concentrating on it the rest of the game today. 😀