Swinging arms question again :

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Did the NCAA actually come out with a new rule, casebook play, or Point of Emphasis that counteracted the "original" interpretation?

Yes, they did. They introduced the concept of a player's "cylinder", within which a player with the ball is allowed to make any "basketball move". If there is contact with a defender within that cylinder during a normal basketball move, the defender is responsible for the contact.

This is obviously a direct contradiction of the previous rules on F1 fouls for moving elbows.

Somebody else will have to post the NCAA citation, as I don't have my new books yet.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Yes, they did. They introduced the concept of a player's "cylinder", within which a player with the ball is allowed to make any "basketball move". If there is contact with a defender within that cylinder during a normal basketball move, the defender is responsible for the contact.

This is obviously a direct contradiction of the previous rules on F1 fouls for moving elbows.

Somebody else will have to post the NCAA citation, as I don't have my new books yet.

Rule 4-39.1.c: “The space that a player may legally occupy is defined by an imaginary cylinder surrounding the player and which extends from the floor to as far above the player as he can jump or extend his arms and body. The diameter of the cylinder shall not extend beyond the hands/arms on the front (the arms bent at the elbow), the buttocks on the back and the legs on the sides. These dimensions may vary according to the height and size of the player.”

4-39.1.k: “The offensive player must be allowed enough space to make a normal basketball play. The defense may not invade the vertical space of the offense and make illegal contact when the offensive player is attempting a normal basketball play. A normal basketball play in this context includes shooting, passing, dribbling or pivoting.”

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Yes, they did.

Why can't the NFHS follow suit?

Young Basketball Official: "So, BillyMac, why did you charge that player with an intentional foul? His foul didn't appear to meet any of requirements of an intentional foul as defined in Rule 4."

BillyMac: "Because the player was swinging his elbows, not excessively, and he accidentally struck, not too severely, the opponent in the head."

Young Basketball Official: "Please show me that in the rulebook or casebook."

BillyMac: "Sure it's right here. Wait? It's not in our 2017-18 rulebook. It's in the 2012-13 rulebook. Check out your 2012-13 rulebook when you get home."

Young Basketball Official: "I don't have a 2012-13 rulebook. Back then, I was still playing basketball in high school. I didn't become a basketball official until last year."

BillyMac: "Well then see Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. He's probably got a copy of that old rulebook up in his attic. I'm sure that he'll be pleased to lend it to you."

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm glad it didn't...and the NCAA also backed away from this strict application too. For a while, the NCAA was going with an F1 on just about any elbow contact above the shoulders. They wisely dumped that interpretation after a year or so after players rebounding a ball were getting tagged with F1's because the elbow made contact with a head while "moving". They went with a much more sensible interpretation and application after that allowing for normal basketball plays to be incidental or just common, even if a moving elbow made contact with the head.

I agree any contact with moving elbow = intentional is harsh. I prefer the ncaam rule. It is in that rule book. The travesty is that nothing is in the nfhs rules and it hasnt been discussed since 2012. Except here.