|
Mon Jan 20, 2003, 08:57am
|
||||
|
||||
|
Girls' HS varsity game Saturday night. Game is not close from the start.
Mad scramble for the ball near the sideline opposite the table in Team A's frontcourt. One player for each team dives after the ball, and the Team B player is able to get to the ball and move it upcourt. At this point the girls were both lying on the floor, stomachs down (like they had just dove headfirst, which they did). Since the play had gotten a little chippy as the margin on the scoreboard got larger (we did call 55 fouls, so there's no way we weren't trying to control this) I decided to stay with the two players even though the play was heading upcourt. Good thing I did. Just as the ball was crossing midcourt, the team A player rolled over and elbowed the team B player in the middle of the back. I suppose I should've called a flagrant foul, but I saw the entire exchange and to me the act didn't warrant ejection. It did, however, warrant something more than a common foul. If this had been a dead ball situation, it would've been a nobrainer -- a technical under 10-3-9. It was not a dead ball situation, although in essence it played out like one since the ball was downcourt. Where would the experts here go with this? Rule an intentional personal foul? Rule a flagrant foul just because of the unsporting nature of the foul? I'll tell you what I did after I hear some feedback. Regards, Rich 
|
|
Mon Jan 20, 2003, 09:16am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rich
This is a situation that I would use the history of events to help me determine what I would do. For example, has either of the players been called for an aggressive foul earlier, was the elbow a gesture of antaginism or a sincere effort to cause harm....
My initial thought is an intentional personal foul, but that could be more harsh if there was a "history" with the elbowing player. (With 55 fouls called, I suspect there is a "history")
__________________
"Stay in the game!"
|
|
Mon Jan 20, 2003, 09:20am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rich,
I would go with Intentional personal foul. If the act wasn't flagrant this is the way to go. Your other options include violation, this is called when there is no contact, or a personal common foul. The intentional will send a message to the players without ejection. I have a suspicion that this is what you called. Those rugged girls games sure get ugly in a hurry! That was good officiating to recognize that something could happen behind the play. Most officials fail to recognize these types of things and just follow the play. This is a good lesson to all out there that we need court awareness just as the point guards do.
|
|
Mon Jan 20, 2003, 11:42am
|
|||
|
|||
I agree with Bigjo I would call an intentional foul to send a clear message that this will not be part of the game. Great job by staying with the play. It must be something about girls basketball you can't look away for one second.
|
|
Mon Jan 20, 2003, 04:43pm
|
|||
|
|||
Good job Rich
This assuredly fits the definition of an INTENTIONAL foul.
Possibly a flagrant if there was history between these two. Or the player was injured. I might lean toward flagrant if the fouled player screamed and roled over in agony or possibly got elbowed in the back of the head. Severity would play a role, I guess. Was the player just being stupid or intentionally trying to hurt the other? Hurt ==> flagrant and ejection. No damage/stupid ==> intentional, wave off impending score, award shots, and the ball.
__________________
"There are no superstar calls. We don't root for certain teams. We don't cheat. But sometimes we just miss calls." - Joe Crawford
|
|
Tue Jan 21, 2003, 08:32am
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm bumping this up to get more input. So far, the consensus seems to be that this is an intentional personal foul.
Any other comments? My next post will go into detail about what I actually did, which may or may not be calling an intentional personal foul. (I won't bump again, I promise) Here's a shameless plug: I have my first basketball article up on the paid section of this site. I've been writing baseball articles off and on since the beginning of the site, but I thought I'd delve into some basketball issues. If anyone subscribes, take a minute to read my article and drop me an email at [email protected] and let me know what you think. Rich
|
|
Tue Jan 21, 2003, 11:21am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am going to disagree with everyone. Elbows are my pet peeve. Would you not call it fighting if she had thrown a punch? Yet an elbow is much, very much more of a weapon than a fist. It is it easier to crack a rib or break a jaw with an elbow than with a fist. The elbow does not give on impact, more force can be applied over a shorter distance with an elbow throw than with a fist.
I dont care one bit what happened in the game before this. If an elbow is thrown, she or he is gone.
|
|
Tue Jan 21, 2003, 12:34pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Thu Jan 23, 2003, 08:48am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm checking in late here, and just wondering why this WOULDN"T be a T. The new rule is that if an elbow is thrown and doesn't make contact, it's a violation. If it does make contact, it's still a technical. Can't find the darn rule book to quote it, but I'm sure that's what it says.
Okay, never mind. Just got curious and hunted up the rule book. Only reference I can find to an elbow that makes contact is under the POI 4E Excessive Swinging of Arm(s)/Elbow(s) "...If contact is made, the official must judge the severity ofthe act and possibly even determine intent." So I guess intentional would be the best call. But then, on the other hand, why not call it unsporting? I guess a T just feels more like something people will understand. It's so hard to talk to a coach about an intentional. [Edited by rainmaker on Jan 23rd, 2003 at 07:54 AM]
|
|
Thu Jan 23, 2003, 09:38am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
|
|
Thu Jan 23, 2003, 10:01am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Thu Jan 23, 2003, 10:28am
|
|||
|
|||
|
elbow contact isn't a T
Rainmaker,
When you have contact during a live ball, is is just a foul. It could be a common, personal, or an intentional (flagrant or non-flagrant). If you have contact during a dead ball then you can have a T. The slinging of elbows without contact as of this year is just a violation as opposed to a T that no one was calling any how. Remeber, in a general term...dead ball contact equal Technical fouls. Reread your foul summary chart in the book.
|
|
Thu Jan 23, 2003, 10:45am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Flagrant
I'd say it is a personal flagrant based on the definition of a flagrant foul. My rule book is in the car so I can't quote it, but I believe a flagrant foul is for excessive contact and includes striking an opponent. Since you didn't view it as flagrant, I'd have to say the only other option is intentional because it is a live ball and the player was not playing the ball. Really doesn't matter between the 2 as the penalty is the same.
Mregor
|
|
Thu Jan 23, 2003, 01:36pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't know since I wasn't there. Myself i'd be inclined to send that person to the bench with a flagrant. Atleast an intentional should have been called by the sounds of it. Here in Ontario there has been a lot of debate since they changed the swinging of the elbows rule whether or not to call elbows as intentional fouls. Myself, if it's the ball carrier pushing off with an elbow and it's not extreme i like to call the PC. However, I think that there should have been an intentional called here.
And yes rainmaker, a technicial foul cannot be the result of contact during a live ball situatuion,only dead ball contact can be penalized with a T. TR
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
