Elbowing
 

Situation BJV last night

A1 getting post position to receive pass into the post - I am lead -
A1 swings a pretty visious elbow but misses the defender behind him - I call elbow violation - what would you have?

The Fed wants these curtailed. The possibilities are either the elbow violation or a technical foul (possibly flagrant if an attempt to injure). If the swinging was deliberate, I would go with the T. If not, violation sounds like a good call.

Non-contact swinging of the elbows, violation...yep. Although I agree with JR that if the intent is to cause injury, a technical is the correct call.

-Josh

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.

OK, perhaps a bit far-fetched but what if a defender (say they're in a zone) swings the non-contact elbow? With perhaps some low-level "get out of my area" display but no intent to harm (No T)? It's a slow day here ...

It's a violation for the defender as well.

A1 rebounds a shot by B1. B2 and B3 immediately pressure A1. A1 in trying to keep the ball away from the defenders swings his elbows back and forth. No contact.

Anything?

Maybe, maybe not.

MTD, Sr.

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.

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

Called it in my last game when the kid rebounded and started flailing his elbows within inches of defender's faces.

To me, an easy "Excessive swinging of elbows".
It even has it's own signal in the NFHS Official Basketball Signals chart.

Now if the kid is swinging his elbows and no one is around him or defenders are retreating from him as he begins to do it... no call.

Paul

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???

OK, blanking out and nobody's bailed me out yet: What's the penalty/action after this? Especially since it could be off ball/away from the play? Just blanking out.

It'a a violation. For all violations, except BI and GT, what is the penalty?

Now Tell Us What You Really Think ...
 

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.:p

I Guess He's On The Fence, Or Off The Wagon ???
 

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

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.

Don:

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

MTD, Sr.

Maybe, maybe not. :D

MTD, 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.

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?

You absolutely have to call a violation on that PIG :p

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.

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.

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.

four situations
 

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.

Snaqs:

You should know me better, :D. 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.

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.

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

The way you describe it a violation.

Bob:

I know, what the rule book says but since we no longer shoot one free throws for TF's that are neither intentional nor flagrant what is the difference between a non-intentional, non-flagrant TF and an intentional, non-flagrant TF under NFHS rules.

MTD, Sr.

The difference is that you can't call a non-intentional, non-flagrant technical foul for contact after the ball has become dead, or for non-intentional, non-flagrant contact committed by or on an airborne shooter after the ball is dead either. Iow, you couldn't apply NFHS rules 4-19-1NOTE or 4-19-5(c). You can call an intententional or flagrant technical foul under those circumstances though.

Are you proposing that we just ignore those rules completely, as if they didn't exist?

Silly monkey!

JR:

Speaking per NFHS Rules only (because where play is continued after an intentional, non-flagrant foul in NCAA Rules makes it necessary for there to be a definition of an intentional TF) the point I am trying to make is, that penalty wise, under NFHS Rules, there is no difference between a non-intentional, non-flagrant TF and an intentional, non-flagrant TF: Two free throws and possession of the ball for a throw-in at the division line opposite the Scorer's/Timer's Table.

When the penalty for a non-intentional, non-flagrant TF was one free throw and possession of the ball for a throw-in at the division line (and at one time the team had the option as to which side of the court to take its throw-in for all TF's), there was a need for an intentional, non-flagrant TF. Now there is not.

Of course that does not mean that the actions that warrant a TF cannot be deemed intentional by rule, it just is not relevant anymore penalty wise.

MTD, Sr.

You're not actually saying that it's a violation even if our intrepid elbow swinger contacts an opponent, are you?

There's still one significant difference between an intentional TF and a flagrant TF ... the disqualification of the offender.

BITS:

JR and you are missing the point: I am discussing only the penalties for TF's. We all agree that disqualification is part of the penalty for a flagrant TF. The disqualification part of the penalty is not what I am discussing. Under NFHS Rules the penalty is the same for both a NON-intentional, NON-flagrant TF and an intentional, NON-flagrant TF: two free throws and possession of the bal for a throw-in at the division line.

There was a time when there was a need for a distinction between NON-intentional, NON-flagrant TF's and intentional, NON-flagrant TF's. The free-throw penalty for the former was one free throw and for the latter was two free throws.

MTD, Sr.