Think I missed one....

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

It's not the minority, it's flat out wrong. It has been stressed that elbow contact to the head IS a foul. Common/technical/flagrant. Therefore it cannot be ignored simply because the ball is dead. It has nothing to do with "safe". It has to do with expectations of the job. IF there is intent its a flagrant and not a technical.

If it is deemed common, it can and should be ignored if the ball is dead.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If it is deemed common, it can and should be ignored if the ball is dead.

I disagree with elbow contact to the head being ignored in this case and so do my local and college assignors. The FED and NCAA have made it clear that contact to the head is not to be ignored, and they have been very clear and succinct with the message.

[BillyMac]

2012-13 NFHS POINTS OF EMPHASIS

2. Contact above the shoulders. With a continued emphasis on reducing concussions and decreasing excessive contact situations the committee determined that more guidance is needed for penalizing contact above the shoulders.

a. A player shall not swing his/her arm(s) or elbow(s) even without contacting an opponent. Excessive swinging of the elbows occurs when arms and elbows are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arms and elbows is in excess of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot. Currently it is a violation in Rule 9 Section 13 Article.

b. Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties.
1. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2. An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3. A moving elbow that is excessive can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

4-19-1-Note: Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant ...

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by deecee

I disagree with elbow contact to the head being ignored in this case and so do my local and college assignors. The FED and NCAA have made it clear that contact to the head is not to be ignored, and they have been very clear and succinct with the message.

Before this season, I would most likely have agreed with you. However, in NCAA-M, we are now instructed to determine the position of the forearms (vertical vs. horizontal) of the offensive player when officiating these plays. If the offensive player's forearms are more vertical than horizontal, the foul would be on the defensive player for violating the cylinder of the offensive player. This is a common foul on the defense. I would apply these same rules to dead ball contact as well. If the offensive player's forearms are vertical and contact is made above the defensive player's shoulders, this would be a common foul on the defense. Therefore, it should not automatically be a technical or flagrant technical foul on the offense just because the ball is dead.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Before this season, I would most likely have agreed with you. However, in NCAA-M, we are now instructed to determine the position of the forearms (vertical vs. horizontal) of the offensive player when officiating these plays. If the offensive player's forearms are more vertical than horizontal, the foul would be on the defensive player for violating the cylinder of the offensive player. This is a common foul on the defense. I would apply these same rules to dead ball contact as well. If the offensive player's forearms are vertical and contact is made above the defensive player's shoulders, this would be a common foul on the defense. Therefore, it should not automatically be a technical or flagrant technical foul on the offense just because the ball is dead.

Yes I agree, however this is one very specific scenario and you're not going to (I don't want to say ever) have this issue occur in a cylinder situation. In fact the cylinder exception IS FOR contact with a an elbow on a defender where the ball handler is making a rip through maneuver to move the ball from one side of their body to the other. The forearm is expected to be perpendicular to the court and any contact with the elbow is deemed a defensive foul. However contact where the forearm is parallel/horizontal to the court, its still a foul on the offensive player.

So although I did say that the expectation is that contact to the head is not to be ignored (and it isn't) in this case it would be. This probably covers a very small percentage of elbow contact. My statement was meant to be taken at face value with common sense applied that ya there is 1 exception.

In your scenario you are expecting a defender to be so close to get called for a foul (non cylinder foul), then the offensive player commits to a rip through maneuver. I just don't see it. It could happen, it's just not when how this happens. Usually it's off a rebound, or a trap and a kid is trying to clear space.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

I disagree with elbow contact to the head being ignored in this case and so do my local and college assignors. The FED and NCAA have made it clear that contact to the head is not to be ignored, and they have been very clear and succinct with the message.

They did say that. After numerous silly results they backed off of that quite a bit, however.

And even before relaxing the interpretations, they (as indicated in the POEs posted by Billy) still allowed for a common foul involving elbows and the head. Several jurisdictions, and I think the NFHS too, clarified of what was meant by "movement" ruling that an elbow not moving relative to the body was just a common foul.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

They did say that. After numerous silly results they backed off of that quite a bit, however.

And even before relaxing the interpretations, they (as indicated in the POEs posted by Billy) still allowed for a common foul involving elbows and the head. Several jurisdictions, and I think the NFHS too, clarified of what was meant by "movement" ruling that an elbow not moving relative to the body was just a common foul.

I never said it was only a Tech/Flagrant. The expectation is to NOT ignore it and a call must be made. You can read into it how you want, dead ball elbow contact to the head CANNOT be ignored. Since we cannot call a common foul the only option is T. The main reason is things escalate from there reasonably quickly.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

I disagree with elbow contact to the head being ignored in this case and so do my local and college assignors. The FED and NCAA have made it clear that contact to the head is not to be ignored, and they have been very clear and succinct with the message.

Originally Posted by deecee

I never said it was only a Tech/Flagrant. The expectation is to NOT ignore it and a call must be made. You can read into it how you want, dead ball elbow contact to the head CANNOT be ignored. Since we cannot call a common foul the only option is T. The main reason is things escalate from there reasonably quickly.

You're contradicting yourself.

You simply can't, by rule, go with a tech just because the ball was dead unless it would have been an intentional/flagrant with the ball live. So, yes, you do ignore such contact, by rule, if it only rises to the level of a common foul.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

They did say that. After numerous silly results they backed off of that quite a bit, however.

And even before relaxing the interpretations, they (as indicated in the POEs posted by Billy) still allowed for a common foul involving elbows and the head. Several jurisdictions, and I think the NFHS too, clarified of what was meant by "movement" ruling that an elbow not moving relative to the body was just a common foul.

Where can i find something saying they backed off or reinterpreted or gave a specific definition of "stationary" and "elbow in movement." I view the stationary elbow as play like where a screener holds arms at chest and elbows stick out beyond his stance. Defender runs into the elbow in that position--stationary--common foul.

If the elbow is moving, even at the same speed as rest of body because the pivot is moving it --intentional foul. If elbow is excessive--moving faster than the pivot--intentional or flagrant. I like the college rule much better. And it is written in the rules.

I can call it however they want. Can you tell me where there's something that defines movement as you mention above. I havnt seen anything saying that a players elbow which moves only because of the pivot is stationary. Or can be considered not in movement etc. thx

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If it is deemed common, it can and should be ignored if the ball is dead.

The poster said the player swung the elbow and hit him. Under the POE, that is an elbow in movement. Even if offense doesn't mean it, it's intentional by rule. Should not be ignored cause happened while ball dead. Under the POE as written it cannot be a common foul.

Again, I'll call it however they want, but I have not seen anything saying that can be considered a common foul. If elbow moving itself, or because body pivots it is still moving. I don't search a lot of things so I'm not saying there isn't something there. I just haven't seen it and wouldn't know where to look. Illinois had slides for its rules meeting saying same thing as POE. They have not issued any other statewide interpretation. I certainly would like the ability to call a common foul when the elbow is moving in a normal way, say on a pass) but I haven't seen anything allowing me to do it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The poster said the player swung the elbow and hit him. Under the POE, that is an elbow in movement. Even if offense doesn't mean it, it's intentional by rule. Should not be ignored cause happened while ball dead. Under the POE as written it cannot be a common foul.

Agree...swing = intentional (at a minimum) which then becomes a T.

Originally Posted by BigCat

Again, I'll call it however they want, but I have not seen anything saying that can be considered a common foul. If elbow moving itself, or because body pivots it is still moving. I don't search a lot of things so I'm not saying there isn't something there. I just haven't seen it and wouldn't know where to look. Illinois had slides for its rules meeting saying same thing as POE. They have not issued any other statewide interpretation. I certainly would like the ability to call a common foul when the elbow is moving in a normal way, say on a pass) but I haven't seen anything allowing me to do it.

At least at the NCAA, you only have to watch a number of the replays from this year and last year that clearly show elbow contact with a moving elbow where they come away with nothing or no upgrade. In the first year of the elbow updates, a large number of the same plays were ruled intentional. Now, unless it is a swing, they go with a common foul or, if not called initially, nothing.

And in our state, they gave the interpretation a while back that I suggested above....moving in a normal play is just a normal play and common. Moving faster than the body (excessive swinging) is an intentional. If it is vicious or targeted, it goes flagrant.

[BillyMac]

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You're contradicting yourself.

You simply can't, by rule, go with a tech just because the ball was dead unless it would have been an intentional/flagrant with the ball live. So, yes, you do ignore such contact, by rule, if it only rises to the level of a common foul.

Camron I know the rule(s). Sometimes the rules and expectations of the job don't line up nice and pretty.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

Camron I know the rule(s). Sometimes the rules and expectations of the job don't line up nice and pretty.

My assignors don't ask for calls that are not supported by rule.

[BigCat]

[QUOTE=BillyMac;994999][IMG]https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1634/25129383649_0f32ceb38a_m



Can you make the print any smaller? I see a stick man who looks like he's taken to many blows to the head. Nothing else...and I did open my eye before trying.