Elbowing

[DonInKansas]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Wow, such a definitve answer. Is that your final answer, and are you sticking to it?

It's the message board equivalent of a weak whistle.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

It's the message board equivalent of a weak whistle.

Our former interpreter used to say, "The best bad call, is a strong bad call".

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Spence

As a new official I've leaned towards the "maybe not" but I'm not sure what I would have to see to call the violation in this scenario.

Spence:

I am glad you didn't think I was being flip in my previous response. I should have added that it is a HTBT type of play. As someone who has taught new basketball officials (MTD, Jr., is a second year official) I would actually hope that a new official would be more prone to put air in his whistle than not put air in his whistle.

The biggest problem with new officials is to call anything, because it is all new too them and there is so much information to process.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

Contact doesn't matter. If you deem the swinging excessive, call the violation.

Don:

Contact does matter, because if there is contact it means that a personal foul has occured.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Wow, such a definitve answer. Is that your final answer, and are you sticking to it?

Maybe, maybe not.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by jevaque

What if B1 controls a rebound with elbows out like some are taught to do and and pivots moving elbows side-to-side but not excessively and makes contact with the defender with his/her elbow???

If A1 had a legal position on the court then B1 has commited a personal foul: common foul which in this case a player control foul.

MTD, Sr.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Spence:

I am glad you didn't think I was being flip in my previous response. I should have added that it is a HTBT type of play. As someone who has taught new basketball officials (MTD, Jr., is a second year official) I would actually hope that a new official would be more prone to put air in his whistle than not put air in his whistle.

The biggest problem with new officials is to call anything, because it is all new too them and there is so much information to process.

MTD, Sr.

The hesitancy on the whistle is due to the apparent vague-ness of the rule. How do you define it? Like the old joke about not knowing how to define porn but knowing it when you see it?

Do I take into account how close the defender is? How many times the elbow swings?

[muxbule]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Refsmitty:

There two possible infractions of the rules in this play. And we are paid to the big $'s to decide which one occured.

Play 1: A1 is just swining his elbows excessively in an effort to get people away from him so he can get the the rebound.

Play 2: Did A1 swing his elbow in an attempt to hit B1 and missed? Attempting to hit an opponent is a flagrant TF.

From the description of your play, I would go with Play 1.

MTD, Sr.

You absolutely have to call a violation on that PIG

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Our former interpreter used to say, "The best bad call, is a strong bad call".

How about these, made on a JV game last night:

1. ball bouncing toward the sideline, and a girl gets bumped out of bounds (you know where this is going). She jumps back in with BOTH feet and grabs the ball. TWEET! "She was out of bounds!" Going the other way.

2. Girl is fouled at the end of the half, and the lane is cleared for her FT attempts. One of the opponents wanders out on the court behind her, drinking from her water bottle, on her way to the locker room a little early. TWEET! "Lane violation! She gets another shot!" Oh yeah, I should mention that the shooter had not released the attempt yet.

These calls made by a 2nd year guy, who has a reputation for being unteachable. He did say that he learned something when we told him that call #1 was incorrect.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jevaque

What if B1 controls a rebound with elbows out like some are taught to do and and pivots moving elbows side-to-side but not excessively and makes contact with the defender with his/her elbow???

If it's not excessive (defined in the book as "pivoting from the shoulders"), then it's treated just as any other movement. If the contact caused a disadvantage, call a personal foul.

If it is excessive, then you can have a violation (no contact) or a personal foul (some contact) or an intentional foul (excess contact) or a flagrant foul, ...

Heck -- you might even be able to call it a fight.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

If A1 had a legal position on the court then B1 has commited a personal foul: common foul which in this case a player control foul.

MTD, Sr.

Only if the defender is within his vertical space. Had a jv game last week where the defender was crouching over top of the opponent who had just secured a rebound. Offensive player pivoted and caught the defender in the face with his elbow. I had nothing, and coach wasn't happy.

[iref4him]

This is what I have been told what to do -

1) If a player swings their elbows to create room or space and no contact --> elbow violation

2) If a player swings their elbows to create room or space and there is contact --> player control foul

3) If a player swings an elbow (not elbows) and misses --> technical foul. Then it is the descretion and intent to determine if you consider it flagrant or intentional. Flagrant, the player is disqualified. Intentional, the player stays.

4) If a player swings an elbow (not elbows) and makes contact --> flagrant foul. Flagrant, the player is disqualified.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Only if the defender is within his vertical space. Had a jv game last week where the defender was crouching over top of the opponent who had just secured a rebound. Offensive player pivoted and caught the defender in the face with his elbow. I had nothing, and coach wasn't happy.

Snaqs:

You should know me better, . A legal position presumes that the defender is in his own vertical space (cylinder of verticality) and not violating the offensive player's cylinder of verticality.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by iref4him

This is what I have been told what to do -

1) If a player swings their elbows to create room or space and no contact --> elbow violation

2) If a player swings their elbows to create room or space and there is contact --> player control foul

3) If a player swings an elbow (not elbows) and misses --> technical foul. Then it is the descretion and intent to determine if you consider it flagrant or intentional. Flagrant, the player is disqualified. Intentional, the player stays.

4) If a player swings an elbow (not elbows) and makes contact --> flagrant foul. Flagrant, the player is disqualified.

iref4him:

The information that you have been given is a very good summation of how to apply this rule, with one small exception. Item (3) is not different from Item (4) except that in (4) contact was made, therefore the TF foul in (3) must be flagrant. It can not be just an intentional TF (by definition there is not such animal anymore in NFHS) even thought the flagrant TF could be intentional. And remember that the flagrant foul in (4) is a personal foul if it occurs while the ball is live.

MTD. Sr.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

It can not be just an intentional TF (by definition there is not such animal anymore in NFHS) .

4-19-3: ART. 3 . . . An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul