How do you call that Technical?

[Dove]

That technical on Drummond is in the same territory as the Donny Marshall "sarcastic clapping" technical foul.

Nah, Donny was a jerk there. Drummond simply gave the ball to a ref that couldn't catch the ball.

 

[BlueMAB]

But if there is no contact it is not a foul, it is a violation for excessive swinging of the elbows. Now if his angle made him think it was a foul, then yes, it is that. However this was never called as a flagrant personal. It was a common personal.

Wrong. There doesn't need to be contact to be a foul.

There are fouls, and there are violations. Excessive swinging of the arms or elbows, with or without contact, is a flagrant foul. The ref obviously screwed up the call, that's not my point. Upstater keeps arguing over and over that he didn't swing an elbow. That doesn't matter.

 

[BlueMAB]

Me obtuse? Really? In a thread about a technical, you guys are making totally obfuscatory points about how the team is playing? And I'm the obtuse one? You only want threads about how bad the team is? Nothing else can be discussed? I'm the obtuse one?

I said I only want threads about how the team is playing? Really? Why don't you just hijack my account, post whatever you think I'm saying, and then respond to it, because you're just making up.

I don't care what you talk about in this thread. I made a few observations:

1- Whether he threw the elbow or not is irrelevant. The ref blew the call, but from that angle, I can see why.
2- The technical was a horrendous call.
3- The way the team is playing, should be more concerning to fans than the a couple blown calls.


Whether or not you want to discuss the technical is your choice, I really don't care.

In the context that you are clearly wrong about the "elbow" call because you don't understand the rule, that you want to take one simple point, and apply comments that I never made to it, and that you argue a point over and over, despite being shown where you're wrong in the rule book. In the context that I said prez was right about one thing, and you decided to apply that comment to the entirety of his argument...Yes, you are the one that is obtuse.

 

[BlueMAB]

But if there is no contact it is not a foul, it is a violation for excessive swinging of the elbows. Now if his angle made him think it was a foul, then yes, it is that. However this was never called as a flagrant personal. It was a common personal.

Wrong. There doesn't need to be contact to be a foul, the swinging of the arms is a foul. It's recorded as a foul, not a violation. A violation is a travel, stepping in the lane early on a free throw, back court, 5 seconds, etc. Excessive swinging of the elbows is not a violation, it is a personal foul that should have been a flagrant.

If he didn't think it was excessive swinging of the arms, then he thought Drummond pushed the other player. Again, from that angle, I can see why. I've already said he blew the call, but for some reason one person keeps arguing that an elbow was never thrown. Which doesn't matter one bit.

I never said Prez was right about anything other than the biggest concern should be the play of the team. I never said what should or shouldn't be discussed, I never said Prez was right about anything else, but that didn't stop the educator with the reading comprehension from putting words in my mouth and making the claim I did.

 

[BlueMAB]

To be fair to upstater, his point was that, if you watch the highlight, Drummond didn't swing an elbow--his arm looked like it due to being fouled.

And my point is, that doesn't matter.

From the ref's angle, it looked like he did. From that angle, I can understand why he called it that way. Even though we all agree he blew the call.

It was a much more forgivable blown call than the one that followed.

 

[freescooter]

It was a blown call. It happens. the Technical was a bad call but the ref was looking away and got hit with the ball and reacted. Don't know that it changed the game though...we were totally incapable of stopping them by that point. And that was the real problem. We had decided we needed to shoot 3s rahter than feed Drummond and Oriaki down low where they were absolutley dominating. I can't remember Drummond getting the ball inside in the final 10 minutes.

 

[dsturdy5]

Wrong. There doesn't need to be contact to be a foul.

There are fouls, and there are violations. Excessive swinging of the arms or elbows, with or without contact, is a flagrant foul. The ref obviously screwed up the call, that's not my point. Upstater keeps arguing over and over that he didn't swing an elbow. That doesn't matter.

Can you please, in either the NFHS or NCAA rules, show me where it says that a foul can occur without contact? Also, I found this in the NCAA book about the elbowing rule (10.13 and 10.14)

Art. 13. Illegal contact caused by the swinging of the elbow(s) that:
a. Results from total body movement is a common or flagrant 1 personal foul
b. Is excessive per Rule 4-36.7 is a flagrant 2 foul.
c. Occurs above the shoulders of an opponent is a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2
personal foul.
d. Occurs below the shoulders of an opponent is a common, flagrant 1 or
flagrant 2 personal foul.
Art. 14. Illegal contact with an elbow that does not involve the swinging of the
elbow shall be considered a foul unless the contact is incidental per Rule 4-40.

Notice the word "contact" in there. If there is no contact, it is a violation as indicated below:

Rule 4-36.7
Art. 7. The following shall be considered excessive swinging:
a. When arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung about while using the shoulders as
pivots, and the speed of the extended arm(s) and elbow(s) exceeds that of
the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot; or
b. When the speed and vigor with which the arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung
is such that injury could result if another player were contacted.

"COULD result in injury IF another player WERE contacted." IE, no contact happened, it is a violation.

Just to be certain, I'll check in with my board's rules interpreter tonight, I should see him.

 

[UConnLen]

That technical on Drummond is in the same territory as the Donny Marshall "sarcastic clapping" technical foul.

Was there at PCC that night, and that was really bad. Only difference was Ollie dribbling the length of court and laying it in for a W at buzzer!

 

[BlueMAB]

Can you please, in either the NFHS or NCAA rules, show me where it says that a foul can occur without contact? Also, I found this in the NCAA book about the elbowing rule (10.13 and 10.14)



Notice the word "contact" in there. If there is no contact, it is a violation as indicated below:




"COULD result in injury IF another player WERE contacted." IE, no contact happened, it is a violation.

Just to be certain, I'll check in with my board's rules interpreter tonight, I should see him.

I already did on the last page.

And I don't see the word "violation" in your quote of the rule. If it's in there but you didn't quote it, then I'll stand corrected, but I don't see "violation".

Regardless, I've already agreed that the ref blew the call, and my only point was that it doesn't matter if an elbow was thrown or not. There's a rule (foul, violation, whatever) for excessively swinging arms and/or elbows.

 

[dsturdy5]

I already did on the last page.

This is what you wrote:

"Any foul involving excessive swinging of the arm(s) and elbow(s) (Rule 4-36.7), either above or below the shoulders during a live ball, or that otherwise meets the requirements of Rule 4-29.2.c and 4-29.3.f.1 shall be penalized by a flagrant personal foul."

It says "foul". I showed you where the rulebook mentions a foul must include contact. For what it's worth I spoke to an NCAA official last night who is also our board's rules interpreter and he agreed with my previous post.

 

[BlueMAB]

This is what you wrote:



It says "foul". I showed you where the rulebook mentions a foul must include contact. For what it's worth I spoke to an NCAA official last night who is also our board's rules interpreter and he agreed with my previous post.

See my edit.

If it's a violation, then I was wrong about it, but I don't see the word violation in there.

My point remains, it doesn't matter if he was swinging an arm or an elbow, the ref saw "excessive swinging" of something, and blew the whistle. He got the call wrong, but I can see why from that angle.

If you disagree with that, then tell me what's incorrect.

 

[dsturdy5]

Rule 4-36.7 (rule four is where all definitions are listed) explain what "excessive swinging of the elbows" is. The lack of contact takes it from a foul to a violation, Rule 9, as mentioned below:

Section 13. Elbow(s)
Art. 1. A player shall not excessively swing his or her arm(s) or elbow(s), even
without contacting an opponent.
Art. 2. A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or
against the body.
Art. 3. Action of arm(s) and elbow(s) resulting from total body movement as
in pivoting or movement of the ball incidental to feinting with it, releasing it,
or moving it to prevent a held ball or loss of control shall not be considered
excessive.

Rule 10 is where the fouls are listed. In rule 10.13-10.14 (prior post) you can see about "contact" made from swinging of the elbows. The contact makes it a foul, not a violation.