Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're really starting to confuse me
 

Perhaps common sense to you, but not to NFHS.

See 10-3-8g in the Simplified and Illlustrated for swinging elbows, "If contact occurs...player control...foul"!!!!

What's the confusion. Simplified & Illustrated 10-3-8g, says that it is a technical without contact, with contact it is a player control, intentional or flagrant. That's they way I've called it for years.

disregard the contact/penalize the act
 

There is just something about an elbow being thrown at you. If I read your sitch correctly, you probably don't want to eject for this "minor elbow", but you feel that it is more than just a personal foul. A rule of thumb that I use: am I going to allow this "minor elbow" to happen 5 times from that player? And, 5 times from each other player on both teams? And, 5 times from each other substitute on both teams? If not, then I am going to disregard the contact and call a T for unsportsmanlike. No way, do I want this to happen all night. It doesn't make sense to me to call a T for throwing the bone, but only a personal if it connects. A technical gets that players' attention and all other team members from both teams. 2 of these will get that player ejected and whatever other penanlties that your state imposes. Works for me.

Mulk

Re: disregard the contact/penalize the act
 

In cases where players are "immune" to fouls calls, you are entitled to call a T for "persistent" disregard of a rule.

But, when contact is involved, I think I would call an intentional or flagrant personal first (the S&I gave those as options too).

Slider,

You may be right. However, I'm not going to let a little thing like "contact" get in the way of good judgement. Are you going to allow A1 to throw this "minor elbow" 5 times? Your decision is setting the tone for rest of the game. I think the act of shooting someone a bone, throwing an elbow is more than a personal foul. I'm not going to allow someone to put his finger in your face, shake his fist at you, bow up at you, etc., etc. My point is this: Don't let contact, or lack of, be the only factors in your call.

Slider -- I don't think you can go exclusively by the Simplified and Illustrated. There are a few drawings and comments in there that directly contradict the Rule and Case Books. In fact, there are several written items in the S & I that directly contradict themselves!


So, using the rule book, we have a T for swinging the elbows, the swing always precedes the contact (basic law of physics!) and thus the ball is dead before the contact. Contact during a dead ball is ignored unless it is flagrant or intentional.

Well, put Juulie. They don't call the S&I the Funny Book for no reason. :)

If a player travels, and then charges into an opponent, are you going to call traveling or a player control foul?

This is no different.

The excessive swinging occurs before the contact. The technical should be called, as it occurred first.

I only use it for my toddler to look at when I'm trying to study, and he wants to "participate." Now that I think about it, I wish this website had a "Funny Pages" so he could post there instead of in the middle of my responses!!

rainmaker, I have found the S&I to be invaluable to "seeing" what some rules mean. I don't remember any quirks in it that don't mirror quirks in the "real" rules/cases. If you or someone else can point out some errors in there, I would greatly appreciate it.

If you don't accept the S&I, I will try this analogy one last time. The rulebook wording for fighting is very close to the wording for elbows, i.e., contact is not required. However, in Case 10.4.4 Situation A, two players are hitting each other while the ball is live. The players are charged with flagrant PERSONALS (double personal).

All the Case plays where fighting is a technical are either non-players, non-contact, or during dead balls. Also, you may have noticed that there is never a Case situation where a live-ball contact foul occurs, and it is called as a technical.


[Edited by Slider on Jan 30th, 2002 at 08:51 AM]

Slider,

I know that I am not explaining myself clearly, but sometimes the infraction is more important than contact, or lack of. As A1 is starting to hold B1 on B1's drive to the basket, he calls him a motherf*&%ker. Disregard the CONTACT and penalize the unsportsmanlike act. I believe the post was a question about what to do when someone throws an elbow, but not seriously enough to be ejected. You still won't respond to my question: Are you going to allow A1 to throw a minor elbow 5 times before you disqualify him/her? In your game, I know that you won't allow this to happen just because you are hung up on the wording in the S&I. I think that you just need to apply a different rule.

Mulk

Sorry ronny, sometimes I mistake real questions for rhetorical questions.

I believe the personal fouls will adequately cover this (during live balls).

If the elbow is minor, common foul, if it is a little too hard, intentional foul, if it is bad, flagrant foul.

I don't see this getting out of control because of minor elbows (minor in my eyes).

practical definitions of elbows.......
 

We have to determine what kind of elbow is being thrown or swung before we can determine what the penalty is...

For a short elbow to the gut, it would just be a personal foul.

For a strong elbow to the chops (which is how BskBallRef described it somewhere earlier in this post) it would be a flagrant foul (IMO..any elbow above the neck that connects is flagrant).

For a player strongly rotating his hips and swinging the elbows, this would be the non-contact T.