I've been thinking about this and I'm 70/30 leaning in favor of the T here.

On one hand, I think #5 was thinking "rebound and secure," probably processed the whistle a little slow, and started thinking, "I don't need to be aggressive here" a fraction of a second after he'd already committed to being aggressive. Probably no intent to strike or anything like that.

On the other hand, elbows get noticed whether they're high or low, or whether they connect or not. So it's the kind of act that can cause tensions to flare later in the game. This needs to be taken care of quickly. Furthermore, in this age of concussion awareness and the elbows that often cause them, we simply can't usually take intent for granted. The responsibility for coaching players not to raise their elbows is a higher priority then the responsibility of officials to judge intent and contact. Think of it like helmet to helmet contact in the NFL; if it's close, it's going to get called, because that's the stance of the league. So, too, are elbow calls the stance of the NFHS and NCAA.

Also, some have been critical that this call didn't come from the L. That would have been nice, but C is already focused on the fouling player (probably while getting his number), so I'm ok that he also notices the elbow. Makes sense to me.

Just judging on the merits of the play alone, that's not close to anything.

I watched the video about 6-7 times. As I watched more intently I "might" have called a T BUT the fact I had to watch it as many tiems as I did before making a determination tells me that I probably would not have called it in real time.

Rob

Watching it repeatedly, the most I could come up with was to say "easy, 5." I don't even think I'd do that on this, though. I'd love to see the L's angle on it, and hear his thoughts.

For that matter, I'd like to know what the calling official thought. He may have had a very good reason for calling it, or he may want it back. Hard to say.