B1 has A1 boxed out on the shot. While maintaining this position, B1 throws a "minor elbow" to A1. What should be called? Common foul, technical foul, or flagrant foul with ejection?

Thanks for any help!

This is something I would have to see. Was it intentional? Did he make contact? Were both players jockeying for position?

RTR; I am not really sure what you consider a 'minor elbow'?? I guess you would have to decide if there was content to injure the other player or it was caused by the players trying to get position. I would have a tendancy to lean towards not calling it a T or Flagrant. Of course it all depends on what has lead up to this point during the game. Sometimes a NO CALL is the best thing.

Don't call T's when the ball is live and there is CONTACT.

If it is a "bad" elbow, call and intentional personal or flagrant personal (I'm assuming the ball is live here).

Slider is correct. If it's during a live ball, it's not a T.

If the elbow is "minor," as you say call a common foul, and let the player know that if he does it again, the next call will be more harsh.

You're really starting to confuse me
 

Come on now, TH. Didn't we just have this conversation? I thought the concensus was that it's a T regardless of the contact. The reason was that the T is for the swinging, which has to come before any contact. So whether there's contact or not, you call the T.

Isn't that what we all decided?!?!?! I just called one (probably my first call of this type in the last 5 or 6 years), and I called a T specifically based on the discussion here. Frankly, I'm totally at a loss now. :confused:

Chuck

Re: You're really starting to confuse me
 

Different play, Chuck.

We're not talking about a play were a player excessively swings his elbow. I took it that we're talking about an elbow to the chops that the player thinks no one will see. Two completely different situations.

If I misinterpreted the play, I'll stand corrected but that's what I understood to have happened.

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Different play, Chuck.

Ok, whew. I've regained a little of my composure. Just to double check, TH, is my representation of our previous "concensus" still correct?

Chuck

If you ruled that the player was excessively swinging his/her elbows, then you were correct to assess a T, whether contact was made or not.

Good job! ;)

Re: You're really starting to confuse me
 

I must disagree with the consensus. For whatever perverse reason, live ball contact by players is only called as a personal. If he swung his elbows excessively before contact (and you recognized that), then you could have a T.

There is a good analogy with fighting, look at 4-19-7a in the Simplified and Illustrated (if you have one) and two fighters are punching each other while a dribbler goes by. They are called for two flagrant personals for fighting.

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

Oy! Here we go again . . .

The foul for excessively swinging elbows is just that - for excessively swinging them. Once the elbows are swung, you have a T, the ball is dead, and any subsequent contact is ignored (unless flagrant or intentional).

Now, at least by my reading, in this situation the elbows aren't being swung (as in pivoted about the shoulder) - they're simply being "thrown" into the defender - this is a personal foul because of the contact.

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

The definition for fighting talks about an attempt to strike an opponent as a foul (regardless if contact is made). If we followed your logic, there would never be a Personal Foul for fighting (since an attempt always proceeds a hit).

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

It's a T to swing the elbows excessively. When the elbows swing, you have a T immediately. You don't go with a lesser penalty because there's contact. The contact is not the foul. The act of swining the elbows is the foul, although it is technical, not personal.

With regards to fighting, I will always call falgrant technicals for fighting. Fighting occurs when the player swings, not when he makes contact. It's fighting whether he makes contact or not.

In the case of fighting, it's not really as important because the penalty is basically the same. But with regards to swinging the elbows, it's simply wrong to only call a personal just because there's contact, when you would call a T if there wasn't contact. The rule book says it's a T, even if there isn't any contact, not only if their isn't contact.

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

You are going against Casebook guidance if you call live ball punches (contact) as technicals, see Case 10.4.4 Situation A.
It says to go with the "lesser" penalty of a Personal for live ball fighting; if you find a case or rule that shows a live ball elbow with contact called as a T, then I'll change my mind.

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

Nope, i'm simply going by 10-3-8g which says it's a flagrant technical foul to be charged with fighting. It does not say it has to be during a dead ball. Personally, I believe there's a contradiction in between the rule and the case play. In such a case, I'm going with the rule.

It says to go with the "lesser" penalty of a Personal for live ball fighting; if you find a case or rule that shows a live ball elbow with contact called as a T, then I'll change my mind. [/B][/QUOTE]

What do you mean "go with the "lesser" penalty of a Personal for live ball fighting?" Fighting is always flagrant, there is no lesser penalty. 2 shots and the ball OOB for a throw-in.

I was referring to your willingness to simply call a personal if there's contact on excessive elbows, yet you're going to call a T if there is not contact. That doesn't make sense. When the elbows are swinging, you have a T. You don't wait until to see if there's contact and then call a personal. The reason swinging is a T is to hopefully make the call before there is contact. But it's a T as soon as they swing. That's the rule and that's common sense.

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.