This new 'emphasis on elbows' needs to go

I'm all over preventing injuries in sports, especially head injuries.

But this is getting ridiculous.

For the second time this season, the outcome of a game was greatly influenced by a change in how the NCAA handles swinging elbows. Before I get into the actual plays themselves, a quick review of the rules and the changes. Over the summer, the NCAA asked officials to put an emphasis on swinging elbows. From a May 6th release by the NCAA:

the change would require men’s and women’s officials to assess either an intentional or flagrant foul on a player who swings an elbow and makes contact with an opponent above the shoulders. If the foul is deemed to be intentional, the team whose player was struck would receive two free throws and possession of the ball. If the foul is deemed to be flagrant, the player who threw the elbow would be ejected.

Since 2010 was a non-rules change year, the only thing that is different is how the referees are required to interpret the rule and assess a penalty.

Rule 9, Article 13, Sections 1-3 from the NCAA Rulebook states the following:

The first incident happened a week ago when Utah State traveled to BYU. The Aggies were down 72-69 with just over two minutes left in the game. Utah State's Tai Wesley collected a defensive rebound in traffic. BYU's Chris Collinsworth reached for the ball, and Wesley -- who doesn't have his elbows extended -- rotates his entire upper body to keep Collinsworth from getting his hand on the ball. His elbows don't make contact with Collinsworth, but they are raised.



The rulebook states that any excessive swinging of the elbows is not allowed, but it also states that a player is allowed to pivot or move the ball to prevent it from being stolen so long as his elbows are not extended. Do you think Wesley's elbows are extended? Was he pivoting and moving the ball to prevent it from being stolen? Did that really deserve to be an intentional foul, let alone a game-changing whistle?

Wesley was whistled for an intentional foul. Instead of Utah State having the ball, down three, with two minutes left, BYU got two free throws and the ball back. The foul was also Wesley's fifth. The call by no means cost Utah State the game -- even under the circumstances, they had two chances to get a defensive rebound down 74-71, and both times BYU beat them to the loose ball -- but it really put the Aggies behind the eight ball.

Last night in Maui, Venoy Overton was given a technical foul in a similar situation. Washington had fought back from a five point deficit to tie the game before Kentucky went on a quick 11-4 spurt to take a 61-54 lead. After a DeAndre Liggins jumper put Kentucky up seven, Overton was dribbling the ball over half court towards the Washington bench to call a timeout. Liggins tried to beat Overton to the spot, and as Overton came to his jumpstop, Liggins flopped, trying to get the charge call.

The timeout was granted, but the referees went to the monitor to review the play. I don't have any video (please send it along if you do), but Overton barely extended his elbow, and it appeared he was trying to protect himself against the collision more than anything. What's more is that any reaction made by Liggins was a flop in an attempt to draw a charge. Is there anything that Overton did on that play that warranted a foul, let alone an intentional/technical foul?

But Overton was still assessed a dead ball technical foul. Kentucky not only got two free throws, they got the ball back. With six minutes left, that is an enormous swing.

To make matters worse, three minutes later, when Overton was guarding Knight about 25 feet from the basket, Knight ripped the ball through. When he did, he landed an elbow square on the chops of Overton. Of the three, it was easily the most blatant elbow and should have been the the most obvious call.* It was the only one where his elbow was actually extended. Knight wasn't trying to keep the ball from being stolen, he was trying to clear space. Its exactly the same play as when Manny Harris knocked out Chris Kramer, which was one of the incidents that led to this emphasis on reducing elbows.

*(For the record, I don't think what Knight did was wrong. Clearing space by ripping the ball through is what players are taught from a young age to do when you are being crowded by a defender, and in my opinion is wasn't a flagrant attempt to hurt Overton. If Venoy Overton wants to get up in Brandon Knight's jock 25 feet from the rim, he has to be aware that he may catch an elbow. These things happen in basketball. Its part of the game.)

But no whistle was blown. Play continued essentially 5-on-4 before Eloy Vargas was fouled. Lorenzo Romar had to beg the officials during a TV timeout to check the monitors and review the play. If the whistle was blown when the elbow was swung, Washington would have gotten two free throws and the ball. Instead, their two free throws were erased by two free throws for Vargas. With 3:49 to go in a close game, that extra possession is huge.

I can support the effort to eliminate thrown elbows. It is unacceptable for a player to throw an elbow to try and hurt an opponent. Elbows are just as damaging as throwing a punch, and if you throw a punch in a game, you'll spend a lot of time in street clothes.

But this "emphasis" on eliminating elbows isn't preventing players from being hurt, it is influencing the outcome of basketball games. Its not changing the way the game is played, its simply changing the way it is called.

If there is a "no tolerance" policy on elbows that are thrown, the referees need to make sure that they are "not tolerant" of elbows that are illegal.

Because for my money, neither Tai Wesley nor Venoy Overton broke the rules of the game that are listed in the NCAA rulebook.