Swinging of Elbows

[Dave Brost]

I would have to agree that in most cases the swinging of the elbows is being done to rid off a defender. Even though there was no contact, I think in the case mentioned above, you have to "T" the player. Had he made contact with the defender, it was probably going to result in an injury. These are the types of things that have to be under control by the officials. I agree, zero tolerance.

[Hawks Coach]

Bard
I am not sure whether or not you were saying rotating torso with elbows extended was a T or not, but it sure doesn't look like it from your rules reference. It can be a foul, but to be a T the elbows must swing more than the body -your reference. The reference clearly states that the arms are pivoting on the shoulders and moving faster than the body, not upper body pivoting as one unit from waist (with shoulders, arms, elbows all moving in same plane of rotation). I would agree that the latter case is seen more often and is not "swinging the elbows" but is a foul if illegal contact results from this action.

[bard]

Hawks Coach,

To determine whether having the elbows extended is a 'T', I would reference the following:

"b. The aggressiveness with which the arms and elbows are swung could cause injury to another player if contacted."

Extending the elbows typically puts them at a good height and location to nail someone at the neck or above. In my eyes, this is dangerous/aggressive.

Admittedly, there is room for judgement here. But, the only reason I see for extending the elbows is to scare the defender into legitimately thinking he'll lose his nose if he comes any closer! The ball can be equally well protected by tucking in the elbows and rotating at the waist. If a defender tries to grab the ball at this point, it's an easy foul.

Time to head out and work an 8th grade boys game. You know I'll be watching for this tonight! ;-) (As well as for those silly rubber bands...)

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by zebraman

IMHO, with contact you really can't call a "T" unless you think the kid was being unsportsmanlike (because it's a live ball situation). With contact you either call a PC or perhaps could sell an intentional foul.

I have said many times and will say it again....THIS IS NOT TRUE.

The T is for the swing, not the contact. Contact or not, it can still be a T. The swing is the T and causes the ball to be dead, the contact is irrelevant.

If it is marginal, the contact does open up the option of calling a common/PC foul rather than having to pick between nothing and a T.

[daves]

I had an incident come up in a game a few years ago. point guard A1(with possession of the ball) in her front court above the 3 point arc swung her elbow to ward off the defender. She made contact with her elbow to player B1's chest. I blew my whistle immediately and called a foul on A1. In this situation, I had several choices. I could have called her for the PC foul. I could have called a T. I would have even had a case for a flagrant foul. I opted for the T. In retrospect, I believe it was the right call. The penalty for the PC foul would have been minimal, resulting in loss of possession for A. If I had called the flagrant,B would have gotten 2 shots, possession of the ball and A1 would have been ejected from the game. She also would have to sit the next game by our state association rules. That would have been too severe a penalty. With the excessive elbow swinging T, the penalty was 2 shots with ball possession at the division line. Just right in my opinion.

[Oz Referee]

I think this is one of those areas where judgement is needed. If a player swings his elbows, with no chance of connecting with a player, how can you call a T? This would be like a player getting ejected for shadow boxing on court. Sure throwing a punch is a toss, but only if it aimed at, or has the possibility of connecting with, someone.

My ruling: Good Call! Warn the player and get on with the game.

[zebraman]

The T is for the swing, not the contact. Contact or not, it can still be a T. The swing is the T and causes the ball to be dead, the contact is irrelevant. <.b>

Camron,

Technically (no pun intended) you are right...but if there is contact, I'm calling a PC, intentional, or flagrant. I think the "T" rule is NFHS way of letting us be preventative officials and giving us a way of punishing a wicked elbow even if it doesn't hit anyone. IMHO, if there is contact made, we should punish the contact.

Z

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by zebraman
Technically (no pun intended) you are right...but if there is contact, I'm calling a PC, intentional, or flagrant. I think the "T" rule is NFHS way of letting us be preventative officials and giving us a way of punishing a wicked elbow even if it doesn't hit anyone. IMHO, if there is contact made, we should punish the contact.

What kind of logic is that?

1- If there's no contact, B gets 2 FTs and the ball for a throw-in.

2- If some poor joker gets a tooth knocked out by an elbow, you just going to give him the ball?

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. In #2, the foul is more severe but you're going with a foul that calls for a lesser penalty. That's makes no sense whatsoever. If it's a technical without contact, it's a technical with contact, because the actual foul occurred prior to the contact.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by bard
The rule is 4-24-8 in NF. "It is not legal to swing arms and elbows excessively. This occurs when:
a. Arms and elbows are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arms and elbows is in excess of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot.
b. The aggressiveness 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 technical foul."

I've always read this as "a AND b," not "A or B."

Otherwise, the last sentence would say "these descriptions" not "this description."

[bard]

Bob,

Grammatically, it is an "or." (Unfortunately, grammar does not appear to be an area of focus in the manual, as there are several questionable items!) Subpoints A & B both indepently complete the phrase, "This occurs when:"

"Using this description..." refers to Article 8 as a whole. Reading this as "a" or "b" is also consisent with the rest of the manual. For instance, I just thumbed to 4-19-5, "A technical foul is:
a. A foul by a nonplayer.
b. A noncontact foul by a player.
c. etc...

The bulleted items (a,b,c,etc...) each independently complete the phrase with the colon (. I'm being anal retentive here, but grammatically, you must read each of these items as "or". I further believe this is clearly the intent of the rule. Swinging the elbows in a dangerous manner, whether or not anyone is nearby, is intended to be a 'T'.

[Hawks Coach]

Why on earth would you say that these phrases are grammatically an "or." I have always read them as an "and," because the first is never a violation without the second. And the reference to the unitary "this description" as opposed to "meeting either of the above criteria" I think further solidifies the case.

But forget grammar, just look at A by itself. That is clearly not a violation 99.9% of the time. Anytime I move my arm with relation to my shoulder, I meet the criteria of part A - taken literally. That's the only way we can take A if we have an either-or situation. So every time I move my arm, call a T? No way is it read like this - it is clearly stated that you swing your elbows beyond your normal torso rotation AND you are doing it in an agressive manner - not either one, but both.

If a player does not meet both criteria but strikes a player hard with the elbows in an agressive manner, you can call the flagrant anyway. But if they pivot hard with the elbows staying right in line with the body, you have no call by rule. If they are swinging elbows hard but hardly moving the body, that is regarded as always threatening and a T.

[Edited by Hawks Coach on Jan 15th, 2002 at 05:38 PM]

[bard]

(I'm sorry, this got long.)

One more comment from me before I let this thread mercifully run its course! Grammatically, 4-19-5 is a good example:

"A technical foul is:
a. A foul by a nonplayer.
b. A noncontact foul by a player.
c. etc...

This could also be read, "A technical foul is a foul by a nonplayer. AND/OR, a technical is a noncontact foul by a player. AND/OR, a technical is ..."

Perhaps we just need to ignore the conjunction between the independent phrases and acknowledge that the "a," "b," and "c" items are not criteria that must ALL be met in order for there to be a technical. (I.E. A technical foul cannot be both a foul by a nonplayer and a noncontact foul by a player at the SAME time.) Either 'a' or 'b' or 'c' are sufficient to meet the criteria for a technical foul in a particular situation. (Sorry for using 'or' again. It's early and I've had no coffee...)

So in the context of swinging elbows, 4-24-8 is written in the same manner. Either 'a' or 'b' are sufficient to call a T. You don't have to meet both.

"Anytime I move my arm with relation to my shoulder, I meet the criteria of part A - taken literally" Not in my book, because you're not "swinging." You're just moving.

"It is clearly stated that you swing your elbows beyond your normal torso rotation AND you are doing it in an agressive manner - not either one, but both." I don't think so. I think it is just as clear in the other direction! ;-) But since I don't want to volunteer to rewrite the whole darn book, I'll just stop here! Thanks for the discussion!