College Question - Elbows

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's not my understanding.

Stationary: Common, intentional or flagrant, whether above or below the shoulders (although I'm having a hard time coming up with an example of I or F in this case)

Excessively Swinging (as in the definition): Flagrant, whether above or below the shoulders.

Swinging, but not excessively: Above the shoulders -- I or F; Below the Shoulders -- C, I or F

NCAA-M: Any elbow that connects above the shoulders that is deemed not to be incidental must be ruled either intentional or flagrant; common foul is not an option for any elbow above the shoulders. Non-excessive elbows below the shoulders can be incidental, common, intentional, or flagrant.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

What has to be deemed excessive? The swing of the elbow? If that's what you mean, then I'm not sure I agree with this. By definition, a flagrant foul includes "severe" contact. You can cause severe contact, even without excessively swinging your elbows.

If you mean that the contact has to be deemed excessive, then I still disagree, because by definition, that would merely be an intentional foul.

Just thought I'd throw that out there, FWIW, which may be nothing.

This is the language to which I was referring:

Any foul involving excessive swinging of the arm(s) and elbow(s) (Rule 4-36.7), either above or below the shoulders during a live ball, or that otherwise meets the requirements of Rule 4-29.2.c and 4-29.3.f.1 shall be penalized by a flagrant personal foul.

[BayStateRef]

Link to Article Note Penalty Case Ruling Rule Comment Image Table Figure Exception

NCAA 4-36-7 (same for men and women):

The following shall be considered excessive swinging:
a. When arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arm(s) and elbow(s) exceeds that of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot; or
b. When the speed and vigor with which the arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung is such that injury could result if another player were contacted.

The guidance on the women's side is that if the official deems the elbow contact with an opponent, above or below the shoulders, to be excessive, then the penalty is a flagrant foul. If it during a live ball, it is a flagrant personal foul; if during a dead ball, it is a flagrant technical foul.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's not my understanding.

Stationary: Common, intentional or flagrant, whether above or below the shoulders (although I'm having a hard time coming up with an example of I or F in this case)

Excessively Swinging (as in the definition): Flagrant, whether above or below the shoulders.

Swinging, but not excessively: Above the shoulders -- I or F; Below the Shoulders -- C, I or F

Bob, maybe you should pay attention! Actually, I think the "clarifications" and "addendum's" will come flying before we hit Christmas.
From what was demonstrated during the summer an elbow to the head deemed a foul is Intentional or Flagrant. Example: Player sets a screen with elbows out at shoulder level. Defender takes the elbow in the head. Intentional, regardless if the elbows moved or not. If they take it in the shoulder etc then common. That is not to say I have not heard your interp either. As for me, I will err on the side of caution and go INT. That seems to be the tact "They" are wanting us to take.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

NCAA-M: Any elbow that connects above the shoulders that is deemed not to be incidental must be ruled either intentional or flagrant; common foul is not an option for any elbow above the shoulders. Non-excessive elbows below the shoulders can be incidental, common, intentional, or flagrant.

That is what we were told.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

NCAA-M: Any elbow that connects above the shoulders that is deemed not to be incidental must be ruled either intentional or flagrant; common foul is not an option for any elbow above the shoulders. Non-excessive elbows below the shoulders can be incidental, common, intentional, or flagrant.

From the NCAA-W portion of Arbiter (and I *thought* this rule was the same):

4. What has NOT changed for the 2010-2011 season.

a. Officials determine what is legal/incidental contact. This type of contact is still not a foul. (Rule 4-40)
b. Officials determine what is illegal/non-incidental contact. This type of contact is still a foul. (Rule 4-40; 4-29.2)
c. A foul caused by a STATIONARY (not moving or swinging) elbow is still a common foul. (4-36.1, .3, .4, .5 and .6; 4-29.2.a)
d. A foul caused by swinging the elbows EXCESSIVELY is still a flagrant foul. (4-36.7; 4- 29.2.c and .f)
e. Officials are permitted to review the monitor to see IF a contact flagrant foul has occurred. When it is determined that a contact flagrant foul did not occur, but an intentional personal or player/substitute technical has occurred, these acts and only these acts can be penalized. (Rule 2-13.2.d)

[Judtech]

The key is "above the shoulder" Above the shoulder= Min Intentional

[jc147119]

While much of the emphasis has been placed on the above/below the shoulders language I believe the real key is the swinging/moving elbow language as if the elbow is stationary and contact is made to an opponent above the shoulders, a common foul can be called (an intentional may still be called but a common fould can still be called by rule). IF the elbow is swinging/moving AND contact is made above the shoulders then a common foul is no longer an option and the foul called must either be an intentational foul or a flagrant foul (personal of technical depending of the status of the ball).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jc147119

While much of the emphasis has been placed on the above/below the shoulders language I believe the real key is the swinging/moving elbow language is if the elbow is stationary and contact is made to an opponent above the shoulders, a common foul can be called (an intentional may still be called but a common foul can still be called by rule).

Why would you believe that when the rules citation saying your belief is false under NCAA Mens rules has already been posted above?

Or are you referring strictly to NCAA Womens rules?

[jc147119]

My apologies I was referring to the women's rules.