Michigan v. Minnesota

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

There is no "per the rule" here(NFHS), because this only exists as a POE and powerpoint presentation.

Well if you want to play the semantics game then sure.

But it is a POE in this year's rules book and this is the language every official in my association received from our interpreter via our commissioner:

"Any elbow in movement that contacts an opponent above the shoulders must be ruled an intentional foul, at minimum. If the elbow contact is deemed excessive, savage, or violent, the contact may be ruled flagrant. Under no circumstances may officials rule such contact a player-control foul, since a player-control foul is, by definition, a common foul."

So if a coach ask me why I called an intentional foul on his player for elbow contact I am going to say "by rule it must be an intentional foul, at minimum....."

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Well if you want to play the semantics game then sure.

But it is a POE in this year's rules book and this is the language every official in my association received from our interpreter via our commissioner:

"Any elbow in movement that contacts an opponent above the shoulders must be ruled an intentional foul, at minimum. If the elbow contact is deemed excessive, savage, or violent, the contact may be ruled flagrant. Under no circumstances may officials rule such contact a player-control foul, since a player-control foul is, by definition, a common foul."

So if a coach ask me why I called an intentional foul on his player for elbow contact I am going to say "by rule it must be an intentional foul, at minimum....."

That's fine. We use "should" here, as does the POE.

[JRutledge]

Well, it is not semantics when the NF never changed the rule. They certainly gave an interpretation, but did so without changing the language of the rule. Nothing in the definition of Intentional Foul has changed or said that any elbow contact or certain elbow contact is an to be only an Intentional Foul. And if they do not put in the language after this year, we will be right back to where we were before. And any new official will not have any reference point.

And since this obviously came from the NCAA level, why not change the rule like the NCAA did? The NCAA supported their ruling under their rules.

Peace

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

That's fine. We use "should" here, as does the POE.

I wish we were doing the same. I have heard, though not confirmed, that 4 of the 5 ejections for flagrant elbow contact in my association this year have been overturned from the standpoint of the player having to sit out the next game per our state's governing body rules.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well, it is not semantics when the NF never changed the rule. They certainly gave an interpretation, but did so without changing the language of the rule. Nothing in the definition of Intentional Foul has changed or said that any elbow contact or certain elbow contact is an to be only an Intentional Foul. And if they do not put in the language after this year, we will be right back to where we were before. And any new official will not have any reference point.

And since this obviously came from the NCAA level, why not change the rule like the NCAA did? The NCAA supported their ruling under their rules.

Peace

Valid points.

I'm in agreement the NF should change the rule and said earlier they needed to further clarify the interpretation and guidance. NCAA and the NBA have much better language on elbow contact IMO.

But based on what we have been told here I'm telling a coach "by rule" if only because saying "by our interpretation of the POE and guidance...." takes too long.

I get you and Sniper's point though.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Well if you want to play the semantics game then sure.

But it is a POE in this year's rules book and this is the language every official in my association received from our interpreter via our commissioner:

"Any elbow in movement that contacts an opponent above the shoulders must be ruled an intentional foul, at minimum. If the elbow contact is deemed excessive, savage, or violent, the contact may be ruled flagrant. Under no circumstances may officials rule such contact a player-control foul, since a player-control foul is, by definition, a common foul."

So if a coach ask me why I called an intentional foul on his player for elbow contact I am going to say "by rule it must be an intentional foul, at minimum....."

And that is exactly why some states have interpreted "movement" to really only mean certain types of movement. This is absolutely not an intentional foul (for F1) and should not be called as one. In fact, if I had anything, it might be illegal use of nose.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And that is exactly why some states have interpreted "movement" to really only mean certain types of movement.

As a Washingtonian I approve this message...