NFHS emphasis on elbow contact

Camron Rust

AKOFL wrote
the sit i see is chinning the ball and having your elbows our to your side. Not moving and a defender tries to reach in and hits his head on your elbow on his way in to reach for the ball. thoughts.

I have no foul. The ball handler doesn't have to clear a way for the defense to get to the ball. The elbows have to be somewhere and if the hand on that arm is holding the ball, I'm not going to consider it illegal when someone runs into it regardless of the position. If that arm is, instead, being used to shield the ball but not holding the ball or is extended in a very unnatural fashion, I would consider otherwise.

tref

BktBallRef wrote
It makes sense if the stationary player doesn't have legal position.

Officiating the on ball matchup & beyond is the key to knowing that the screener is illegal before contact occurs.

Camron Rust wrote
I have no foul. The ball handler doesn't have to clear a way for the defense to get to the ball. The elbows have to be somewhere and if the hand on that arm is holding the ball, I'm not going to consider it illegal when someone runs into it regardless of the position. If that arm is, instead, being used to shield the ball but not holding the ball or is extended in a very unnatural fashion, I would consider otherwise.

Great points, after all, who's going into who's vertical space.
You reach, I teach...

Mendy Trent

Camron Rust wrote
"Cause" is a positive action as it is commonly used in the realm of basketball. As such, the elbow in your example didn't cause the contact...it was just there. The other player caused contact by moving into it. It just happens that the reason it is a foul is that the elbow was not in a legal position when contact occurred.

Shooter cause contact all the time when they catch a defender out of position....maybe the arms are not vertical and the shooter ensures they cause contact in hopes of getting a foul (sometimes deserved, sometimes not).

I think we are in agreement other than semantics. 🙂

Camron Rust

Mendy Trent wrote
I think we are in agreement other than semantics. 🙂

Who is this semantics guy who disagrees with us? Maybe he needs some clarification. 😉

Adam

I think the next question is whether the semantics matter. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Here, I would lean towards saying they do.

AKOFL

Camron Rust wrote
I have no foul. The ball handler doesn't have to clear a way for the defense to get to the ball. The elbows have to be somewhere and if the hand on that arm is holding the ball, I'm not going to consider it illegal when someone runs into it regardless of the position. If that arm is, instead, being used to shield the ball but not holding the ball or is extended in a very unnatural fashion, I would consider otherwise.

our assigner rules that there is no situation for elbow contact above the shoulder to be ruled a common foul. is this your take on that rule?

bob jenkins

AKOFL wrote
our assigner rules that there is no situation for elbow contact above the shoulder to be ruled a common foul. is this your take on that rule?

That's clearly contrary to the statement in the POE.

Scrapper1

BktBallRef wrote
It makes sense if the stationary player doesn't have legal position.

I just saw this thread now, and this was my exact thought.

Setting a screen with elbows high and wide is not a legal position, so any contact on those elbows is illegal. This is similar to a defensive player who takes a stationary position with one foot on an out-of-bounds boundary line. The position is not legal, so any contact that occurs is illegal contact caused by the defender.

Camron Rust

Scrapper1 wrote
I just saw this thread now, and this was my exact thought.

Setting a screen with elbows high and wide is not a legal position, so any contact on those elbows is illegal. This is similar to a defensive player who takes a stationary position with one foot on an out-of-bounds boundary line. The position is not legal, so any contact that occurs is illegal contact caused by the defender.

That is not correct. The OOB player can't have LGP, that is all. The rule doesn't come anywhere near declaring that they are liable for all contact by being OOB, just that they can't be guarding. It doesn't become open season for an opponent to run into them if they see they happen to be touching OOB but are not actively guarding.

The case play that some like to cite to support your claim involves a player actively guarding the opponent...meaning the player was moving to maintain LGP but loses it by stepping OOB. It doesn't support your claim at all.

Rob1968

9-13-2. . . A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or against the body.

So, A1 holds the ball as described, above, and B2, guarding A2 runs into A1's elbow.

What do we have?

(I've seen this, numerous times, and even with severe contact to the head of B2.) What judgement factors do you use regarding such contact?

billyu2

Rob1968 wrote
9-13-2. . . A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or against the body.

So, A1 holds the ball as described, above, and B2, guarding A2 runs into A1's elbow.

What do we have?

(I've seen this, numerous times, and even with severe contact to the head of B2.) What judgement factors do you use regarding such contact?

According to 4-40-7, a player with the ball can be considered to be a screener. I would say in this situation A1 could be charged with an illegal screen.

Camron Rust

Rob1968 wrote
9-13-2. . . A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or against the body.

So, A1 holds the ball as described, above, and B2, guarding A2 runs into A1's elbow.

What do we have?

(I've seen this, numerous times, and even with severe contact to the head of B2.) What judgement factors do you use regarding such contact?

Depends. It could be a foul on either. It could either be a screen that is called against A1 or it could be a foul on B2 for contacting the ball handler's arm. Unless it was a clear attempt to use the elbow to set a screen, I'm most likely going with the defensive foul. If you don't you'll have defenders running into the ball handler's arms all night trying to get the illegal screen call.

bob jenkins

Camron Rust wrote
Depends. It could be a foul on either. It could either be a screen that is called against A1 or it could be a foul on B2 for contacting the ball handler's arm. Unless it was a clear attempt to use the elbow to set a screen, I'm most likely going with the defensive foul. If you don't you'll have defenders running into the ball handler's arms all night trying to get the illegal screen call.

Agreed. It could also be incidental contact.

Most of the time, a player only chins the ball when a defensive player is tring to swat at it. So, the chances of having a different defensive player run into the elbow are pretty slim, I would think.

IREFU2

AKOFL wrote
our assigner rules that there is no situation for elbow contact above the shoulder to be ruled a common foul. is this your take on that rule?

He need to rethink his statement......

Adam

IREFU2 wrote
He need to rethink his statement......

Yep, taking a college mentality and applying it to high school when the rules don't support it.

Maybe even taking a misunderstanding of the college rule.

IREFU2

Adam wrote
Yep, taking a college mentality and applying it to high school when the rules don't support it.

Maybe even taking a misunderstanding of the college rule.

The one and only problem I see with this whole thing is that someone has to see the elbow contact. Since there are no monitors (at least in our area in HS), a coach cant request or even suggest that his kid got an elbow...no way to review even if the kid is on the grown holding his face.

Camron Rust

Adam wrote
Yep, taking a college mentality and applying it to high school when the rules don't support it.

Maybe even taking a misunderstanding of the college rule.

Yes, even a misunderstanding of the college rule.

AKOFL

it is my college assigner. lol perhaps i misread what he posted..

AKOFL

if A1 is swinging his elbows and he contacts B1, above the shoulders it is a Flag 1 or Flag 2, below the shoulders is Ccommon, flag1 or flag 2. if the swinging is excessive and contact is made flag 2. THen there is the contact by an elbow that is not swinging. It can be a foul or incidental. so no swinging elbow contact can be a common foul? may be that is the point he was making. How does that sound?

APG

IREFU2 wrote
The one and only problem I see with this whole thing is that someone has to see the elbow contact. Since there are no monitors (at least in our area in HS), a coach cant request or even suggest that his kid got an elbow...no way to review even if the kid is on the grown holding his face.

I'm not getting your point. That's true for any type of foul at the high school level isn't it? 😕

« Previous Page Next Page »