NFHS: Excessively swinging elbows

[w_sohl]

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?

[Raymond]

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

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

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?

Depends. What made the foul flagrant?

[w_sohl]

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 another ref]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

But I was thinking I remembered that you would call a T for ES with 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.

[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.

[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?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

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.

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.

[w_sohl]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

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.

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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