I have seen, in three of four games I have called on a certain floor this year, an elbow to the head. I called one of them and ejected the player. In two others my partner called them one was player control, the other was called intentional. I would like your thoughts on which you would call and where you draw the line between each of those options.

I had a 'bow foul tonight. Two players get tangled up, and B1 goes to the floor. The ball goes to the other side of the floor and a shot goes up. B1 flys across the floor and nails A1 with an elbow/forearm to the chest. I called an intentional foul AND counted the basket! If he had hit him in the head, I would have tossed him.

Not to say I would always do that but that's just the example I had from tonight.

I'm lucky, I've only had 1-2 actual elbowing fouls in my entire career (of course, now I've jinxed myself, I'll probably have three in the Varsity Tourney game I have tomorrow).

The PC type usually happens when ball-carrier is tightly guarded or trapped by multiple players...often after securing a rebound, with the other team pressing the other way. The ball-carrier is trying to pivot or get clear to pass. He may swing the elbows while pivoting, and nail someone...bang, PC foul.

The intentional/flagarant comes in where there is a clear attempt to elbow that is not at all related to the situation mentioned previously. For me, whether or not the player gets chucked depends, and every situation is likely different. But any player that deliberately swings an elbow and connects above the chest is likely to get the heave-ho from me.

The only flagarant fouls I've had to chuck someone for were two-handers in the back during layups. Nasty stuff.

this is what I tell my young officials in differentiating between player control, intentional, technical, and merely a violation.

If the player is merely "clearing out" by swinging elbows, with the defense a safe distance away, I tell them to go with the violation. This lets the coaches and fans know that you DID address the elbows, and also sends a message to the othe players that we aren't having that tonight.

If the player uses an elbow to slowly "push off" an opponent, then you can go with the player contol foul in that case. Again, the speed of the player's arms is a big factor here.

If the player throws one with a good level of speed to the body and makes contact, go with the technical in this instance. The fact that contact was made, demands that the penalty be harsher than the above.

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.

These guidelines have helped me differentiate accomadating the new violation option, and helped my younger officials blow their whistle more quickly when this situation occurs. The whole idea of having the option of the violation is to get some kind of penalty on the player throwing bows even if there isn't contact or malice involved. The mere act warrants some kind of officials response..

Good point about the violation, Jeremy....forgot to mention that one. I've dinged that one a few times, not too many, but a couple per season. The addition of an elbow violation was one of the smartest rule changes ever, IMO.

I concur..and have called it quite a few times this season...

In the first situation above,you can't call a technical foul of any type,by rule,if the ball is alive.You have to call a personal foul of some type-probably an intentional personal foul in this case.Rules references are NFHS R4-19-1 and R4-19-5,and NCAA R4-26-1 and R4-26-3,5,7.

In the second situation,a swing and a miss is a violation if the ball is alive,by rule also,not a technical foul.Rule 9-13-1 plus Penalty in NFHS covers it.The terminology "excessive" is already used to justify a violation being called.

Well, then I will kill the ball first with my whistle!

In all reality, nobody is going to argue with a tech in that situation in my opinion.

Not being smart,Jeremy,but shouldn't you be teaching your "young officials" to call these plays properly,and by rule? That was more of a concern to me than someone maybe arguing the difference between an intentional personal and an intentional technical during a game.Btw,with the POI in NCAA rules for technicals,it certainly does make a difference if you classify the foul properly.The team that was fouled won't get possession of the ball now.That could cost somebody a ball game.

I edited this to add another thought.It sure can make a difference,if that player now gets a second T in that game.Now he's disqualified and possibly suspended,depending on his local rules.You might get some argument after you put that report in,if someone wants to appeal it.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 8th, 2003 at 02:10 PM]

In the first situation above,you can't call a technical foul of any type,by rule,if the ball is alive.You have to call a personal foul of some type-probably an intentional personal foul in this case.Rules references are NFHS R4-19-1 and R4-19-5,and NCAA R4-26-1 and R4-26-3,5,7.
[/B][/QUOTE]
J.R.,
Are you referring specifically to the situation or referring to T's overall? There are specific situations where we do call a T during a live ball (i.e. taunting), just not for contact during a live ball. Just wanted to clear that up. Of course you are correct that the situation presented would be either a violation if there was not any contact or a personal foul if they did make contact. Severity would dictate whether it is intentional or flagrant. Our state association has described the violation as "swing and return in the same plane". I think that is a reasonable interpretation of excessively swinging the elbows without contact.

Mregor

J.R.,
Are you referring specifically to the situation or referring to T's overall? There are specific situations where we do call a T during a live ball (i.e. taunting), just not for contact during a live ball. Just wanted to clear that up. Of course you are correct that the situation presented would be either a violation if there was not any contact or a personal foul if they did make contact. Severity would dictate whether it is intentional or flagrant. Our state association has described the violation as "swing and return in the same plane". I think that is a reasonable interpretation of excessively swinging the elbows without contact.

Mregor [/B][/QUOTE]Roger,I was referring to Jeremy's specific post,which was giving a T for elbow contact during a live ball,by a player with the ball.I know(as you stated above)that you sure can have technical fouls during a live ball-but they are non-contact by rule also.I thought Texas played NCAA rules,but that might be football only.There's a big difference in the penalties,with the POI used in NCAA.

OK,
 

Jeremy:

Please don't make up your own rules.

We have enough of them all ready that we have trouble calling consistantly.

Tee

[/B][/QUOTE]Roger,I was referring to Jeremy's specific post,which was giving a T for elbow contact during a live ball,by a player with the ball.I know(as you stated above)that you sure can have technical fouls during a live ball-but they are non-contact by rule also.I thought Texas played NCAA rules,but that might be football only.There's a big difference in the penalties,with the POI used in NCAA. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's what I thought, just wanted to make sure it read that way for everyone. Got to get back to the brown pops...

Mregor

I stand corrected gentlemen...and thanks!

Just to be clear JR...trying to firm up the logistics of the rules differences...

bad elbow by player, you wanna toss him = flagarant

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

Is this right?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Flagrant intentional? That must be a new one. :D 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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
[B]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.

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?

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.

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...

I'm with you JR...
 

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

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.......