Minor elbow

[ReadyToRef]

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!

[Rookie]

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

[WI REF]

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.

[Slider]

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).

[BktBallRef]

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.

[ChuckElias]

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.

Chuck

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
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.

Chuck

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.

[ChuckElias]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

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

[BktBallRef]

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!

[Slider]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
I thought the concensus was that it's a T regardless of the contact...Chuck

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.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Slider
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.

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.

[Slider]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter 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.

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).

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).

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Slider
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.

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.

[Slider]

Originally posted by BktBallRef 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...The rule book says it's a T, even if there isn't any contact, not only if their isn't contact.

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Slider
You are going against Casebook guidance if you call live ball punches (contact) as technicals, see Case 10.4.4 Situation A.

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.