Game Thread - SLU vs Belmont

[drkelsey55]

NBA rules are waaaaaay different than high school or NCAA rules. NCAA rules are much closer aligned with high school rules than with the NBA. You might as well trash your NBA rules.

Excessively swinging the elbows is a violation in high school, and I'm 99% sure it's the same under NCAA rules. If no contact is made, but a player "clears out" the opponent by extending their elbows, a violation (Not a foul) can be called.

I am confused, I have ever seen "violations" listed in any box score. How is one called? Please explain further.

[SShoe]

NBA rules are waaaaaay different than high school or NCAA rules. NCAA rules are much closer aligned with high school rules than with the NBA. You might as well trash your NBA rules.

Excessively swinging the elbows is a violation in high school, and I'm 99% sure it's the same under NCAA rules. If no contact is made, but a player "clears out" the opponent by extending their elbows, a violation (Not a foul) can be called.

Are you guys just making this stuff up as you go?

NCAA rules regarding personal fouls.

Section 1. Personal Fouls

Art. 1. A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress

of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s) or by

bending his or her own body into other than a normal position; nor use any

unreasonably rough tactics.

Art. 2. A player shall not contact an opponent with his or her hand unless

such contact is only with the opponent’s hand while it is on the ball and is

incidental to an attempt to play the ball.

Art. 3. A player shall not use his or her hand(s) on an opponent to inhibit

the freedom of movement of the opponent in any way or to aid an opponent

in starting or stopping.

Art. 4. A player shall not extend the arm(s) fully or partially other than

vertically so that freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when

contact with the arm(s) occurs.

Art. 5. A player shall not use the forearm and hand to prevent an opponent

from attacking the ball during a dribble or when trying for goal.

Art. 6. A player may hold his or her hand(s) and arm(s) in front of his or

her own face or body for protection and to absorb force from an imminent

charge by an opponent.

Art. 7. Contact caused by a defensive player approaching the player with the

ball from behind is pushing; contact caused by the momentum of a player

who has tried for goal is charging.

Art. 8. A dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact an opponent in the

dribbler’s path nor attempt to dribble between two opponents or between

an opponent and a boundary, unless the space is sufficient to provide a

reasonable chance for the dribbler to pass through without contact.

Art. 9. When a dribbler, without contact, passes an opponent sufficiently

to have head and shoulders beyond the front of the opponent’s torso, the

greater responsibility for subsequent contact shall be that of the opponent.

RULE 10 / FOULS AND PENALTIES 123

Art. 10. When a dribbler has obtained a straight-line path, the dribbler may

not be crowded out of that path; when an opponent is able to legally obtain a

defensive position in that path, the dribbler shall avoid contact by changing

direction or ending the dribble.

Art. 11. The player intending to become the dribbler shall not be permitted

additional rights to start a dribble or in executing a jump try for goal, pivot

or feint.

Art. 12. A player shall adhere to the rules pertaining to illegal contact,

including but not limited to, guarding as in 4-35, rebounding as in 4-55,

screening as in 4-59, and verticality as in 4-72.

Art. 13. A player shall not flagrantly or excessively contact an opponent

while the ball is live (includes fighting).

[slufanskip]

Are you guys just making this stuff up as you go?

NCAA rules regarding personal fouls.

Section 1. Personal Fouls

Art. 1. A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress

of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s) or by

bending his or her own body into other than a normal position; nor use any

unreasonably rough tactics.

Art. 2. A player shall not contact an opponent with his or her hand unless

such contact is only with the opponent’s hand while it is on the ball and is

incidental to an attempt to play the ball.

Art. 3. A player shall not use his or her hand(s) on an opponent to inhibit

the freedom of movement of the opponent in any way or to aid an opponent

in starting or stopping.

Art. 4. A player shall not extend the arm(s) fully or partially other than

vertically so that freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when

contact with the arm(s) occurs.

Art. 5. A player shall not use the forearm and hand to prevent an opponent

from attacking the ball during a dribble or when trying for goal.

Art. 6. A player may hold his or her hand(s) and arm(s) in front of his or

her own face or body for protection and to absorb force from an imminent

charge by an opponent.

Art. 7. Contact caused by a defensive player approaching the player with the

ball from behind is pushing; contact caused by the momentum of a player

who has tried for goal is charging.

Art. 8. A dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact an opponent in the

dribbler’s path nor attempt to dribble between two opponents or between

an opponent and a boundary, unless the space is sufficient to provide a

reasonable chance for the dribbler to pass through without contact.

Art. 9. When a dribbler, without contact, passes an opponent sufficiently

to have head and shoulders beyond the front of the opponent’s torso, the

greater responsibility for subsequent contact shall be that of the opponent.

RULE 10 / FOULS AND PENALTIES 123

Art. 10. When a dribbler has obtained a straight-line path, the dribbler may

not be crowded out of that path; when an opponent is able to legally obtain a

defensive position in that path, the dribbler shall avoid contact by changing

direction or ending the dribble.

Art. 11. The player intending to become the dribbler shall not be permitted

additional rights to start a dribble or in executing a jump try for goal, pivot

or feint.

Art. 12. A player shall adhere to the rules pertaining to illegal contact,

including but not limited to, guarding as in 4-35, rebounding as in 4-55,

screening as in 4-59, and verticality as in 4-72.

Art. 13. A player shall not flagrantly or excessively contact an opponent

while the ball is live (includes fighting).

I'm with you IF no contact is made. Elbows in or elbows out I have never seen a call made when there was no contact. Possibly Art 1 could provide the opportunity to make a call regardless of contact "nor use any unreasonably rough tactics" However, I would tent to agree with you, no contact no foul. If the ref was behind the player when he swung his elbows and the opponent fell back, I can see where the ref could easily believe contact was made and I don't think you could argue that. I would think though, that one of the other 2 officials would have had a better angle and would have seen that contact wasn't made.

Player 1 throws a punch, player 2 ducks and the punch misses, is it still a foul. I say yes. I'd say the unreasonably rough tactics covers that. Maybe he felt the elbow was so flagrant it wasn't any different than a punch.

[dneuner]

I think the Belmont kid played after the whistle and Brian reacted aggressively (which I have no problem with) but, instead of seeing it as that, the ref called the foul. It happened right in front of where I was sitting, and I will say that Brian swung his elbow out, but it didn't seem to be an "intentional" foul. But, Conklin had been warned just a few minutes prior, and it was obvious that the refs were loosing control of the game, so the foul was called. Majerus seemed furious on the court (I also heard him yell at least twice on two different plays "No way was that a foul") but he didn't bring it up with us, which surprised me, so I guess bygones are bygones.

EDIT: In my opinion, if Conklin was deserving of the T, then absolutely the Belmont head coach was. You don't go over and talk to a coach and tell him to settle down. You T him up. That was absolutely outrageous. In fact, I think I'm more upset that Belmont didn't get the T than I am that Brian did. Inexcusable.

[SShoe]

I'm with you IF no contact is made. Elbows in or elbows out I have never seen a call made when there was no contact. Possibly Art 1 could provide the opportunity to make a call regardless of contact "nor use any unreasonably rough tactics" However, I would tent to agree with you, no contact no foul. If the ref was behind the player when he swung his elbows and the opponent fell back, I can see where the ref could easily believe contact was made and I don't think you could argue that. I would think though, that one of the other 2 officials would have had a better angle and would have seen that contact wasn't made.

Player 1 throws a punch, player 2 ducks and the punch misses, is it still a foul. I say yes. I'd say the unreasonably rough tactics covers that. Maybe he felt the elbow was so flagrant it wasn't any different than a punch.

I like the grey area discussion, Skip. To answer your question, I think if a player throws a punch and misses, it should be a technical foul, which is different from the standard player foul. I would liken Conklin's play more to calling a reach-in when no contact was actually made.

[Clock_Tower]

i disagree with the tone of this tread. i like the fouls being called. if anything they didnt call enough fouls. the biggest problem with last night and the reason it got out of control is they were inconsistent in the calls. if you make a decision to call em, better call them both ways or else frustration sets in and that is when conklin starts swinging elbows and retaliating to fouls.

conklin deserved his technical and he deserved the foul where he didnt make contact. you cant let a player start acting like that on the floor and expect the other team to say "thanks a lot. i will now fold my tent and go home." that kind of action will only ignite more retaliation and physical play. conklin needs to be able to play hard and tough, but not thuggish and even if his actions were just retaliation on his part, he has to remain above that. play hard, play physical but dont turn it into rugby/football.

Maybe BC forgot and thought we were still playing Chris Lowery and his SIUC thugs??

[slufanskip]

I like the grey area discussion, Skip. To answer your question, I think if a player throws a punch and misses, it should be a technical foul, which is different from the standard player foul. I would liken Conklin's play more to calling a reach-in when no contact was actually made.

I would compare an agressively thrown elbow as closer to a punch than to a reach in. I would agree about it being a tech, but Art 1 did leave the door open.

[troutangler]

I am confused, I have ever seen "violations" listed in any box score. How is one called? Please explain further.

The ball going out of bounds is a violation. Traveling is a violation. Excessively swinging the elbows while holding the ball is a violation. ("Clearing out" defenders)

I'm with you IF no contact is made. Elbows in or elbows out I have never seen a call made when there was no contact. Possibly Art 1 could provide the opportunity to make a call regardless of contact "nor use any unreasonably rough tactics" However, I would tent to agree with you, no contact no foul. If the ref was behind the player when he swung his elbows and the opponent fell back, I can see where the ref could easily believe contact was made and I don't think you could argue that. I would think though, that one of the other 2 officials would have had a better angle and would have seen that contact wasn't made.

Article 1 that you reference is for personal fouls. Excessively swinging the elbows is a violation by the player holding the ball. If there was no contact and a foul was called, he missed the call. It should have been a no call or a violation for swinging the elbows.

Player 1 throws a punch, player 2 ducks and the punch misses, is it still a foul. I say yes. I'd say the unreasonably rough tactics covers that. Maybe he felt the elbow was so flagrant it wasn't any different than a punch.

Throwing a punch would get you a flagrant personal (live ball) or flagrant technical (dead ball) foul. Anything deemed a flagrant foul is an ejection. That list that is posted above is for common fouls, not flagrant fouls.

I like the grey area discussion, Skip. To answer your question, I think if a player throws a punch and misses, it should be a technical foul, which is different from the standard player foul. I would liken Conklin's play more to calling a reach-in when no contact was actually made.

Throwing a punch and even missing would be a flagrant personal or technical foul.

There is no such thing as a reach-in.

I would compare an agressively thrown elbow as closer to a punch than to a reach in. I would agree about it being a tech, but Art 1 did leave the door open.

An elbow thrown while holding the ball that makes contact is going to be a common personal foul 99% of the time. If not, it could rise to the level of an intentional foul.

You guys need to brush up on your definitions.

[GOSLU68]

I would compare an agressively thrown elbow as closer to a punch than to a reach in. I would agree about it being a tech, but Art 1 did leave the door open.

go back and read the "impeding by extending the body in an unusual way, etc. i.e. elbows"

of course I am paraphrasing but I say it depends on how close the guy your threatening is whether you hit him or not if he has to lose his standing position and the cylinder of space he is entitled to you could make a case for it; but like lots of other homers I prefer Conklin only

get called if he decks someone with actual contact. From where I sat in 114 it looked like he

did not touch him. I was surprised KM wasn't called for eyeing the other guys hand

[SShoe]

I would compare an agressively thrown elbow as closer to a punch than to a reach in. I would agree about it being a tech, but Art 1 did leave the door open.

As I've argued, Conklin's play was less "an elbow throw" than the relatively standard, "elbows extended pivot," which players do fairly routinely. I think what Conklin did on the technical was an aggressively thrown elbow, but not on the "phantom" play.

[bonwich]

There's quite a bit more in the rulebook beyond the fouls section:

Section 26. Fighting

Art. 1. A fight is a flagrant foul.

Art. 2. A fight is a confrontation involving one or more players, coaches

or other team personnel wherein (but not limited to) a fist, hand, arm, foot,

knee or leg is used to combatively strike the other individual.

Art. 3. When during a confrontation, an individual attempts to strike another

individual with any of the actions defined in Art. 2, whether there is contact

is irrelevant. The perpetrator shall be deemed to have been involved in a

fight.

Art. 4. When during a confrontation, an individual uses unsportsmanlike

acts or comments which, in the opinion of the official, provoke the other

individual to retaliate by fighting, it shall be ruled that both individuals have

been involved in the fight.

Art. 5. When a physical confrontation has occurred, the officials shall

responsibly determine the individuals who were involved in the fight or left

the bench area to participate.

Art. 6. A combative confrontation may occur when the ball is live, in which

case, it is a flagrant personal foul; or when the ball is dead, and a flagrant

technical foul shall be assessed.

70 RULE 4 / DEFINITIONS

Art. 7. When during the course of play, an individual strikes an opponent

with the hand, elbow, arm, foot, knee or leg in a non-confrontational manner

but the act is excessive or severe, it shall be ruled as a flagrant foul and not

a fighting action. When a defined body part is used to strike an opponent

but the contact is not severe or excessive, a judgment shall be made by the

official as to whether the contact is intentional.

Art. 8. Any time an individual uses a closed fist in an unsportsmanlike

manner, it shall be deemed that the individual has initiated a fighting act and

shall be penalized accordingly.

Art. 9. When any flagrant foul is ruled to be a fight, the fighting penalty

shall be invoked.

Art. 6. It shall be illegal to extend one’s elbow(s) and make contact when

one’s:

a. Hands are on one’s hips;

b. Hands are held near one’s chest; or

c. Arms are held approximately horizontal to the playing court.

Note: These illegal positions are most commonly used when

rebounding, screening or in the various aspects of post play.

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

78 RULE 4 / DEFINITIONS

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.

RULE 9

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.

I believe this validates B-Roy's statement.

[SShoe]

There's quite a bit more in the rulebook beyond the fouls section:

I believe this validates B-Roy's statement.

I stand corrected then. Nice find Bonwich.

[billiken_roy]

Roy, if you can point out in the rule book where it says "you cannot swing your elbows excessively," I'll go back on my statement. That being said, I don't think the play was excessive at all. Coaches teach big men to protect the ball by extending their elbows outward on rebounds, etc. What Conklin did last night on that play was no different from what Chris Heinrich did on every one of his rebounds during his stint here.

here you go,

http://www.ncaapublications.com/Uploads/PD...ae20a6f90ed.pdf

scroll down to page 121 i will say there would have to be interpretation on the part of the ref to distinguish between article 1 and article 3. however i was right it does say there does not have to necessarily be contact.

"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."

[billiken_roy]

sorry, i didnt see bonwich had already found. dam customers calling gets in the way of timeliness for you guys.

[jimbofive]

uggggh... all this rules talk is making my pants flaccid.

Official! Rule! Book!® Item 1a: Conklin's a werewolf. Everybody else is a *****.

[SLUAvtr]

uggggh... all this rules talk is making my pants flaccid.

Official! Rule! Book!® Item 1a: Conklin's a werewolf. Everybody else is a *****.

LMAO!!! Jimbo, that's, I think your best one yet!!!

[bonwich]

*****

Careful! Steve could trace your IP address, call up your employer and get you to resign!

[jimbofive]

Careful! Steve could trace your IP address, call up your employer and get you to resign!

hahaha, he'd get my innerwebs at my house! awesome quote by the way.

[Box and Won]

If you see this man talking to your boss, just pack up your stuff.