NFHS: Excessively swinging elbows
 

Had it tonight, worried that I enforced incorrectly. Want to know if I got it right and if not what is right so I don't screw it up again.

Player with ball excessively swings his elbows making contact to the face of the defender. I immediately blow whistle and call a flagrant personal and eject.

I'm second guessing myself, but did I get it right?

What part are you second guessing? You were there, you saw the play. What other option do you wish you had taken?

Depends. What made the foul flagrant?

The force was enough to knock the kid to the floor. That was why I went with flagrant. But I was thinking I remembered that you would call a T for ES with contact.

Sounds like you guys agree with the way I handled it. It's the first one I've had to call so I just wanted to reassure myself, especially since it is going to cost the kid a game and it is just about playoff time here in CA.

Just my enforcement. No doubt I had something, just can't find it in the rule book where it says anything about contact, 9-13 just mentions a violation without contact.

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.

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.

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

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

A T would only be called on dead ball contact.

Excessive contact alone, as mentioned already, is typically an intentional foul unless it's especially violent/savage in nature.

HTBT. Send us some video. :)

I'm in the boat that it should have been an intentional foul and not a flagrant. I think I went immediately to the flagrant because of all the NCAA talk recently and I had that in the back of my mind. I was thinking there may be another option for me here (intentional) but couldn't remember it on the spot. Pretty sure in NCAA I would have beed dead on, I think in my NFHS game I probably should have gone intentional.

Thanks guys, this will be the first and last time I get this wrong.

That's what I gathered from your initial description.

Perhaps you should note this in your report. If you don't believe that the kid should have been kicked out of that game, then he probably shouldn't be forced to sit out the next contest either and with your stating such your state office may waive his suspension.

Nevada, awesome job explaining the 3!

I'll do that, I'm not writing the report, my R is, but I will contact him and let him know.

The R is writing the report even though you made the call? I find that backwards; the calling official should write the report.

That is what I thought. In fact, I went to the book to get the number so I could write the report and get it correct. Anyhow, I had a copy of the report this morning and I replied with the following.

"After not feeling great about the call I did some research last night. I'm of the opinion that instead of a flagrant personal I should have ruled this an intentional foul and not ejected the player. The contact was neither violent nor sever but it was excessive and warranted an intentional instead of the flagrant. Please take this into consideration when deciding on whether or not to suspend the player for the next game."

I had a situation recently in a frosh boys game where I had to decide what kind of foul to call. B1 rebounded under A's basket, and A1 grabbed for the ball, fouling him. A1 then wrapped him up by the waist and tackled him.

My first thought was: foul for the hold, T for the tackle.

My second thought was: maybe that's just one foul, a flagrant personal.

In the end, (before I got to the table) I opted for one foul, an intentional personal for excessive contact. We shot 2 and B got the ball under A's basket (near the spot of the foul).

The A coach got his angel face on and asked, "Intentional? What did he do?" "Well, he tackled him, coach." "Oh."

In retrospect, I still think I got it right. :cool:

Was there any chance you could have gotten info from your partner(s) before ruling it flagrant?

Reason I ask is because I have one supervisor who mandates that before reporting a flagrant foul (or fight) to the table that the calling official check with his partner(s) for possible addtional information that could help in the ruling.

We got together before I reported. He went with it as well at the time.

I think that you just did the right thing. :)

Also, some areas have the R write the official game report, no matter what. I know of a couple of areas in which the officials don't get paid until the R submits a game report, even if it is only to say that there weren't any problems. Most places are fine with having a supplementary report from an umpire, if needed.

I'm going to be a little bit of a devil's advocate here (with great consideration that this is a HTBT-type play). If the elbow lands a direct blow to the face and knocks the opposing player to the ground, I'm going with a flagrant in this case. Obviously there was excessive force (so we at least have an intentional personal foul) but a blow to the face is violent by nature, isn't it? I guess the play I'm envisioning in my mind would be a flagrant personal foul as you originally called it. On the other hand if the elbow lands a similar blow to the chest, I might be more partial to call this an intentional personal foul. Just my two cents, right or wrong

-Josh

I would be careful about using where the blow lands as your only criteria. What if A1 is significantly taller, and the elbow happens to hit B1 in the face as A1 is looking downcourt at a teammate who is breaking open? I would treat this different than A1 trying to create space, takes a look at B1, then lands the elbow in the same spot with the same force as my first example. Iow, intent should be a part of the decision.

Disagree. Had a game with a big (really big - like 6'11" 300#) guy gets rebound in middle of lane. He chins the ball and pivots. As he pivots, he catches B1 who was behind him, over opposite shoulder but moving accross lane turning to get back on defense. A1 caught him square in the kisser with his elbow as he pivoted. B1 hits floor. A1 got foul but it was not flagrant in this case. There was no intent - I don't think he knew B1 was coming across behind him. No problems with either coach on the call. You have to judge each case on its own merits.

First of all, I agree with what you both said. Each case has to be based on its own merits, this is a HTBT play, and the landing strip for the elbow should never be the only criteria whether something is flagrant or not.

However, excessively swinging of the elbows is definitely different than pivoting and an extended elbow catches someone in the face. Excessively, at least to me, means that the the players torso is not coinciding with the player's elbows.

-Josh