The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:30pm
APG's Avatar
APG APG is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,890
Michigan v. Minnesota

Was asked to post these 3 plays:





__________________
Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, given a chance to climb, they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions.

Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.

Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 1,024
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth- For Now
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB View Post
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.

Last edited by VaTerp; Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 09:54pm.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:03pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,055
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)

Last edited by JRutledge; Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 10:27pm.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 1,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 69
Send a message via AIM to jalons
Incidental contact

Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth- For Now
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalons View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 1,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth- For Now
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB View Post
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....."
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 1,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:11am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,055
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth- For Now
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by APG View Post
Was asked to post these 3 plays:
Why did the person who asked you want Plays 2 and 3 posted?
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:53am
NFHS Official
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,732
I have nothing on all 3 plays.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:03am
APG's Avatar
APG APG is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by ODog View Post
Why did the person who asked you want Plays 2 and 3 posted?
Examples of good no calls
__________________
Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, given a chance to climb, they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions.

Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Virginia/Minnesota edman42 Football 1 Tue Jan 03, 2006 08:16pm
Minnesota Basketball JLC Basketball 10 Fri Jun 17, 2005 04:14pm
Minnesota JeffRobinson Basketball 0 Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:57pm
Minnesota Officials? davidfv1 Football 1 Thu Sep 18, 2003 10:59am
Minnesota People rockyroad Basketball 16 Fri Mar 14, 2003 11:29am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:02am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1