Now that elbow swinging is a violation, are any of you more likely to blow the whistle for this?

In the Points of Emphasis Section, the NFHS state,
"E. Excess Swinging of Arm(s)/Elbow(s)
When there is no contact with an opponent is now a violation.

Nope.

Only saw it once in the past 5 years.

Called the T as required.

I've called a couple of these in the past 5 years. I don't think I'll call any more violations than I did fouls ("I just calls em' like I sees' em'"), but I'll feel better about a violation than I did about 2 shots plus possession.

Z

I will definitely feel better about it, though don't really think I will call it any more. Only called it once last year and the girl (Jr. High) went to the bench crying her head off. I felt bad for her, though if anyone had been near her 30 seconds earlier they would have been missing a nose.

Yeah, bard, I'm likely to make that call this year.
I passed on one last year from Center. The defender had already turned and was headed away. Dunno if either partner saw it, but I did see it.
mick

I'm much more likely to call it, since I see a lot of this at the lower level of girls' play, and I have almost always passed on it, unless there is contact, because it seems so severe, especially since they are only doing what they are taught, and the 75 other refs they've had haven't called.

Wow, any one who wants to know what a run-on sentence looks like, just read the above. I guess I need to go to Ms. I. M. Shirley Wright's Grammar Camp next weekend.

I'll call it more than the T. Although I have called the T, I have called a player control ( Got them on the first swing with a forearm, ... I even had one kid who swang and feet moved enough I called a travel. He came over to me and said it wsnt a travel, I said it was close but told him I guess I would call a T and he was smart enuf to figure it and and said ok I understand.

This just makes the call alot easier

Is the penalty for a run-on sentence a technical foul or a violation? :D

It's a POE this year, can't believe you even asked that.

Run-on sentences are a POE? Now the FED really is going too far! :)

Are they for-em or agen-em?

As far as I know from the most recent research, including polling data culled from IAABO members' opinions regarding the past 10 seasons' rulebooks, casebooks and officials manuals, the NFHS has taken a stand opposing run-on sentences which tend to add unnecessary and also apparently sometimes redundant phrasing and terminology to the already lengthy officiating literature that the NF makes available to all its members, who have apparently complained about the proliferation of these run-on sentences throughout the last decade and been very active in trying to enact some sort of guidelines for the use (or the avoidance) of such sentences, which tend to confuse not only the Fed membership, but also the players when they come out for the captains' meeting and also the coaches when they relunctantly request a clarification on a rules question that may arise during the course of a contest; but it was determined that actually rewriting the Fed literature was too large and expensive a task to undertake at the present time, so instead of a massive rewrite or a complete reworking of the rulebook, it was decided that a relatively short POE -- in comparison to the POEs on traveling or rough play which have been included over the last several years -- would have to suffice to clarify the issue for all of the parties involved.

Chuck

I see.

(BTW, & with apologies to J Dallas Shirley, I expect a
vigorous rebuttal from MTD Sr. :) )

I see.

(BTW, & with apologies to J Dallas Shirley, I expect a
vigorous rebuttal from MTD Sr. :) ) [/B][/QUOTE]Nah,I think he writes the POEs. Mark,not J.Dallas Shirley.

I agree!