Michigan v. Minnesota

[APG]

Was asked to post these 3 plays:

[SNIPERBBB]

What was the final call on the elbow? At worst it looks like a common foul(NFHS).

Second play...I can hear a coach 3 miles away screaming for the (non-existant) foul.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

What was the final call on the elbow? At worst it looks like a common foul(NFHS).
(non-existant) foul.

Also curious as to what the final call was on that play. I don't see how common foul is an option in NFHS. Contact above the shoulders as a result of swinging the elbow is at minimum intentional.

This play however, involves elbow movement that is a natural part of passing the basketball. I find it very dubious to penalize the offensive player in this situation but it is an interesting play based on the wording of the rule and point of emphasis.

[JRutledge]

There was no call on the play and properly so. It was not very inadvertent and making a pass. They looked at the monitor it to see if anything took place and ruled nothing should be called.

Peace

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

This play however, involves elbow movement that is a natural part of passing the basketball. I find it very dubious to penalize the offensive player in this situation but it is an interesting play based on the wording of the rule and point of emphasis.

That's my thinking too. I dont think this is what the NFHS is wanting to address with the elbow issue. I think they are worried about the "chicken wing", not this play.

[jalons]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Also curious as to what the final call was on that play. I don't see how common foul is an option in NFHS. Contact above the shoulders as a result of swinging the elbow is at minimum intentional.

This play however, involves elbow movement that is a natural part of passing the basketball. I find it very dubious to penalize the offensive player in this situation but it is an interesting play based on the wording of the rule and point of emphasis.

I know the NCAA-W have determined you can have incidental contact with a moving elbow. Not ALL contact with a moving elbow is a foul. This was the first point in the Major Officiating Concerns for this season. I believe this is a perfect example of this.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by jalons

I know the NCAA-W have determined you can have incidental contact with a moving elbow. Not ALL contact with a moving elbow is a foul. This was the first point in the Major Officiating Concerns for this season. I believe this is a perfect example of this.

I agree. This was absolutely incidental and a no call at any level.

I was just replying to the poster who said this was "at worse a common foul in NFHS." If you are going to call a foul here, which you shouldn't, but if you do; it cannot be a common foul per the rule. It must be at least intentional.

AndI can easily see some of my colleagues at the HS level calling this intentional because they are taking the elbow rule and POE too literally.

I think there will need to be some further clarification to the rule moving forward.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I agree. This was absolutely incidental and a no call at any level.

I was just replying to the poster who said this was "at worse a common foul in NFHS." If you are going to call a foul here, which you shouldn't, but if you do; it cannot be a common foul per the rule. It must be at least intentional.

AndI can easily see some of my colleagues at the HS level calling this intentional because they are taking the elbow rule and POE too literally.

I think there will need to be some further clarification to the rule moving forward.

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

[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.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by APG

Was asked to post these 3 plays:

Why did the person who asked you want Plays 2 and 3 posted?

[OKREF]

I have nothing on all 3 plays.

[APG]

Originally Posted by ODog

Why did the person who asked you want Plays 2 and 3 posted?

Examples of good no calls