NFHS: Excessively swinging elbows

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It is possible you are remembering the way the rule used to be? It was a T for excessive elbows with no contact. Officials were said to be hesitant to make this call, so it was changed to a violation.

That is what I was thinking. I guess part of it was that my partner wasn't to sure either. I wanted to find out for sure and let him know since he is sending the EJ report as he was the R.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It is possible you are remembering the way the rule used to be? It was a T for excessive elbows with no contact. Officials were said to be hesitant to make this call, so it was changed to a violation.

Originally Posted by w_sohl

That is what I was thinking. I guess part of it was that my partner wasn't to sure either. I wanted to find out for sure and let him know since he is sending the EJ report as he was the R.

So then with contact, your options are: PC foul, INT foul, flagrant foul.

It's a HTBT situation, and your judgment is why we get paid.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

So then with contact, your options are: PC foul, INT foul, flagrant foul.

It's a HTBT situation, and your judgment is why we get paid.

W_Sohl, JugRef is correct and all three are PERSONAL fouls.

Now comes the difficult part: How exactly do you determine what level of foul to assess? You determined the that the foul qualified as flagrant and warranted an ejection. Perhaps that is the part which you are second guessing, so let's look at it.

4-19-4 . . . A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or
savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable
conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not
limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. If technical, it
involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or
persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.

In your opinion, was the nature of the contact violent or savage? Was the player clearly trying to strike his opponent with his elbows in such a manner? If so, then you classified this foul correctly. If not, then you disqualified a player who didn't deserve it.


4-19-3 . . . An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul which neutralizes
an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or
when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or a player, specifically
designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional
fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of
the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player
causes excessive contact with an opponent.

In your opinion did the player with the ball cause "excessive contact with an opponent" by swinging his elbows, but not violent or savage contact? If so, then an intentional personal foul seems right.
This is frequently the right choice when a player swings wildly, but not deliberately or viciously and hits an opposing player. This category is the one to use when you believe that the level of contact was hard and at a level which was clearly more than a normal foul, but wasn't dirty or an attempt to injure.

The final category is covered by 4-19-2 and that is your normal "common" foul. In this case it would become a player control foul since the offender had the ball. This would be appropriate if you believe that the player illegally cleared the opponent out of his rightful space with his elbow. He extended his arms/elbows outside of the frame of his body and into the space of the opposing player and made enough contact to place that opponent at a disadvantage, but the level of the contact was not excessive, violent or savage. In other words, he turned and gave his opponent a knock, but not a clearly unacceptable whack or a deliberate shot.

This can be a difficult area to officiate properly. I hope that my summary helps you. I'm sure that others will chime in with their thoughts. Each person probably has a slightly different take on this and that is what makes it so hard. It is truly a judgment call. One just wants to make sure that if a player is DQ'd that it was well-deserved, and that the action truly warranted a flagrant.

[Da Official]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

W_Sohl, JugRef is correct and all three are PERSONAL fouls.

Now comes the difficult part: How exactly do you determine what level of foul to assess? You determined the that the foul qualified as flagrant and warranted an ejection. Perhaps that is the part which you are second guessing, so let's look at it.

4-19-4 . . . A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or
savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable
conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not
limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. If technical, it
involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or
persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.

In your opinion, was the nature of the contact violent or savage? Was the player clearly trying to strike his opponent with his elbows in such a manner? If so, then you classified this foul correctly. If not, then you disqualified a player who didn't deserve it.


4-19-3 . . . An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul which neutralizes
an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or
when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or a player, specifically
designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional
fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of
the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player
causes excessive contact with an opponent.

In your opinion did the player with the ball cause "excessive contact with an opponent" by swinging his elbows, but not violent or savage contact? If so, then an intentional personal foul seems right.
This is frequently the right choice when a player swings wildly, but not deliberately or viciously and hits an opposing player. This category is the one to use when you believe that the level of contact was hard and at a level which was clearly more than a normal foul, but wasn't dirty or an attempt to injure.

The final category is covered by 4-19-2 and that is your normal "common" foul. In this case it would become a player control foul since the offender had the ball. This would be appropriate if you believe that the player illegally cleared the opponent out of his rightful space with his elbow. He extended his arms/elbows outside of the frame of his body and into the space of the opposing player and made enough contact to place that opponent at a disadvantage, but the level of the contact was not excessive, violent or savage. In other words, he turned and gave his opponent a knock, but not a clearly unacceptable whack or a deliberate shot.

This can be a difficult area to officiate properly. I hope that my summary helps you. I'm sure that others will chime in with their thoughts. Each person probably has a slightly different take on this and that is what makes it so hard. It is truly a judgment call. One just wants to make sure that if a player is DQ'd that it was well-deserved, and that the action truly warranted a flagrant.

Nevada, awesome job explaining the 3!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

It's a HTBT situation, and your judgment is why we get paid.

Disagree: I don't get paid for his judgment.

I agree with Nevada. Didn't we have a thread outlining enforcement on this recently?