Elbow to the head

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy
[/B]

bad elbow by player, you wanna toss him = flagarant

bad elbow by player during play, but not severe enough to warrant ejection = intentional foul

[/B][/QUOTE]On the second one above,you maybe can have a player control foul also.If the player with the ball is just trying to clear space for himself,and you feel that he doesn't deliberately elbow the defensive player,you can call a player control foul on him.

Of course,any foul call being made in these situations-whether it's PC,intentional or a flagrant personal-is strictly up to the judgement of the calling official anyway.

[John Schaefferkoetter]

I like Jeremy's theory.

Let's keep it simple and clear, elbow to head should be flagrant and outahere. Elbow below head should be player control or intentional, depending on the situation. Elbow missing should be technical foul or violation, depending on the situation.

Keep in mind, an offical has a split second to make a decision. Keep it simple, we don't have time to decide if rule R12342134, or rule U[pawiojefok, or if rule aw[eorij should be applied.

[Tim Roden]

I will have to say, that the first time I saw it, my call was to immediatly call a tech. I changed my call by the time I reported it to flagrant intentional. But that split second when you aren't sure how to administer the call can be confusing. Thanks for the discussion.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by John Schaefferkoetter
I like Jeremy's theory.

Elbow below head should be player control or intentional, depending on the situation.

Keep in mind, an offical has a split second to make a decision. Keep it simple, we don't have time to decide if rule R12342134, or rule U[pawiojefok, or if rule aw[eorij should be applied.

Uh,John,I believe that if you check back that you will find that Jeremy's theory was that an elbow below the head that made contact was supposed to be called a technical foul.

Other than that,I agree fully with you that everyone one of us should be allowed to make up our own rules. That practically guarantees that we will never have any arguments,because we'll never be wrong-no matter what.I'm all for that.

[Mregor]

Originally posted by Tim Roden
I will have to say, that the first time I saw it, my call was to immediatly call a tech. I changed my call by the time I reported it to flagrant intentional. But that split second when you aren't sure how to administer the call can be confusing. Thanks for the discussion.

Flagrant intentional? That must be a new one. It should be either flagrant or intentional resulting in 2 throws and the inbounding the ball. If flagrant, the player is also DQ'd. Throw in is from the spot closest to the foul. One caution on flagrant fouls...be sure the act justifies it because there are likely other repercussions to being DQ'd. By all means call them if appropriate; just be sure the penalty fits the crime.

Mregor

[RecRef]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
[B]

Originally posted by John Schaefferkoetter
I like Jeremy's theory.

Other than that,I agree fully with you that everyone one of us should be allowed to make up our own rules. That practically guarantees that we will never have any arguments,because we'll never be wrong-no matter what.I'm all for that.

Agree 100% and here are my rules.


Elbows swung with no contact to clear after a rebound is a violation as in the rules book. Had one yesterday, knew it when I saw it. If there is slight contact I generally call the violation and not the PC, judgment I know but my call.

Elbow used as a hand or forearm would be to protect the ball from a defender it is a PC

Elbow thrown with force, aimed towards the body and no contact, a T. Elbow thrown with force, aimed towards the neck or head with no contact is an ejection, flagrant T

Elbow thrown with force and contact, such as Charles Barkley in the Olympics, is an ejection, flagrant personal foul.

[Jeremy Hohn]

So I guess some of you guys like how I determine which penalty is where, I just didn't have the correct verbage and penalty application?

[Hawks Coach]

I only take issue with on statement you make about the head. You say:

"Anything to the head WITH CONTACT is flagrant with no exceptions. A swing and a miss is a tech, swing and a HIT is a ticket outa here for the rest of the game."

I am not sure how the swing and a miss is a tech by rule this year. I liked the old way it was done, but I thought that it was only a violation, regardless of where the elbow is aimed.

Rule 4, SECTION 24 HANDS AND ARMS, LEGAL AND ILLEGAL USE
ART. 8 . . . It is not legal to swing arms and elbows excessively. This occurs when:

a. Arms and elbows are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arms and elbows is in excess of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot.
b. The aggressiveness with which the arms and elbows are swung could cause injury to another player if contacted.
Using this description as a basis, an official will promptly and unhesitatingly call such action with arms and elbows a violation.

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by John Schaefferkoetter
I like Jeremy's theory.

Let's keep it simple and clear, elbow to head should be flagrant and outahere. Elbow below head should be player control or intentional, depending on the situation. Elbow missing should be technical foul or violation, depending on the situation.

So an elbow to the head is an ejection, but an elbow to the groin is just a T??? Makes no sense at all... if the elbow is thrown with speed and intent to hurt, toss them...

[oatmealqueen]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Uh,John,I believe that if you check back that you will find that Jeremy's theory was that an elbow below the head that made contact was supposed to be called a technical foul.

Other than that,I agree fully with you that everyone one of us should be allowed to make up our own rules. That practically guarantees that we will never have any arguments,because we'll never be wrong-no matter what.I'm all for that.

I'm surprised by all of the confusion. Rule is pretty specific and clear.

[Jeremy Hohn]

The reason that I think the blow to the head is a little more severe, is because that could cause LASTING injury (eye socket fracture, cuts, broken noses, etc..) where the elbow to the body will just leave a bruise, or at worst, the loss of air for a while.

Everyone accepts that the elbow to the head is more aggressive and openly an attempt to injur than one thrown to the body. If I am a player and one is given to me in the chest, I will look at the official for a call, if one goes by my noggin, IT'S ON!

I bet if you would poll players as such you would get the same response.

...and in the verse of Forrest Gump, that is all I have to say abayout thaaaaaat.......