Swinging arms question again :

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I'm apparently in the minority, but I liked the guidelines for elbow contact. I would have liked to see them written into both the NCAA and NFHS rules. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask players not to create contact with their elbows.

Really?

Play 1: A1 goes up for a rebound. B1, who was 6 inches shorter, runs in and under A1 for the same rebound while A1 was in the air. A1's elbow comes down on B1's head.

Play 2: A1, running down the court with their arms "swinging" in a normal running motion. B1 lunges at A1. As A1 goes by B1, A1's elbow clips B1's face.

I saw both of those called IF's more than once in big D1 games, even after video review. The reason was that that A1's elbows were "moving" and made contact to the head's of the opponents. That was what those guidelines lead to and neither of them made any sense.

A moving elbow to the head is just not enough to justify an IF. Players move and their elbows move with them. It is unreasonable for there to be no contact with the head. It is reasonable to expect there to be no excessive contact with the elbows.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Players move and their elbows move with them.

(NFHS only) Doesn't the intent of the NFHS Point of Emphasis deal with swinging elbows in terms of rotational movement (reference to pivoting hips)? Or does it refer to all elbow movement (up and down while running, or returning to the floor after jumping)?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Really?

Play 1: A1 goes up for a rebound. B1, who was 6 inches shorter, runs in and under A1 for the same rebound while A1 was in the air. A1's elbow comes down on B1's head.

Play 2: A1, running down the court with their arms "swinging" in a normal running motion. B1 lunges at A1. As A1 goes by B1, A1's elbow clips B1's face.

I saw both of those called IF's more than once in big D1 games, even after video review. The reason was that that A1's elbows were "moving" and made contact to the head's of the opponents. That was what those guidelines lead to and neither of them made any sense.

A moving elbow to the head is just not enough to justify an IF. Players move and their elbows move with them. It is unreasonable for there to be no contact with the head. It is reasonable to expect there to be no excessive contact with the elbows.

While those examples may seem (or be) "unfair" or overly harsh, the rule did cut down on the more dangerous swinging elbows plays AND get (at least some) officials to make a correct IP of FP call when before they would have passed or called a common foul. It also led to (some) officials getting the first foul when B reached in after a rebound, thus preventing the elbow in the first place. It was consistent, and improved safety --both goals of the HS rules.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

While those examples may seem (or be) "unfair" or overly harsh, the rule did cut down on the more dangerous swinging elbows plays AND get (at least some) officials to make a correct IP of FP call when before they would have passed or called a common foul. It also led to (some) officials getting the first foul when B reached in after a rebound, thus preventing the elbow in the first place. It was consistent, and improved safety --both goals of the HS rules.

Agree....the application just had unintended consequences. The NCAA largely fixed this a very different way to allow for basketball moves without putting the offense at risk for IF (F1s) in the process.

[BayStateRef]

The NFHS has reaffirmed the 2012-13 POE on contact with an elbow above the shoulder. According to the IAABO newsletter Sportorials, this occurred in September during an in-person interpretations meeting.

Clarifications offered by the NFHS:
Contact above the shoulders with a moving elbow
With a continued emphasis on reducing concussions and decreasing excessive contact situations, the committee reiterated its prior position:
Rule 9, Section 13:
ART. 1 A player shall not excessively swing his/her arms(s) or elbow(s), even without contacting an opponent. (Violation)
ART. 2 A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or against the body. (No violation)
ART. 3 Action of arm(s) and elbow(s) resulting from total body movements 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. (No violation)

Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and associated penalties:

• Contact with a stationary elbow of an opponent may be incidental contact or a common foul.
• An elbow in movement but not excessive should be ruled an intentional foul if contact with an opponent occurs.
• A moving elbow that is excessive can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul if contact with an opponent occurs.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Really?

Play 1: A1 goes up for a rebound. B1, who was 6 inches shorter, runs in and under A1 for the same rebound while A1 was in the air. A1's elbow comes down on B1's head.

Not doubting you at all, but I never saw that. And, in fact, when the rule first came to NCAA-M, this play was specifically discussed as NOT being applicable to the rule. The rule was for "swinging" elbows, not just "moving" elbows.

The same applied (at least, in its original introduction) to your second play. A running motion does not include "swinging" elbows.

A moving elbow to the head is just not enough to justify an IF.

Agreed.

It is unreasonable for there to be no contact with the head.

I suppose this is true. Accidents happen.

However, I would also argue that it's not unreasonable to expect players to keep their elbows in, and not use them as a tactical advantage.