Swinging arms question again :
 

I apologize if this has been beaten to death but the other night my two partners asked the question again .............. what is the penalty for elbow contact above the shoulder. I searched the forum and found the below information................... is this the most current interpretation ?

Thanks



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.
b. 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.

I would check your local listings on this one. It is the last NF interpretation that I remember. But they have not addressed this on that extensively in a few years.

Intentional Fouls are very subjective to what is and when it is not. I would check with your local interpreters because they might have a different take.

Peace

Posted By A Forum Member A Few Years Ago ...
 

Not sure how accurate this is, but it's worth starting a discussion.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1634/...32ceb38a_b.jpg

I like the chart and diagram, but I don't see any specific language in the NFHS rules or case book to back that up, as far as what area of contact results in a flagrant foul, intentional foul, etc.
Most of the discussions I have heard about contact to the head and the resulting penalties, concerned the college rule set, which I do not claim to know all the details.

This is the language from 2012 points of emphasis. Travesty that it never made it into the rule book. A stationary elbow can be nothing or personal foul. Example, screen set with elbows outside the frame. Defender runs into that elbow. Personal foul. Elbow wasn't moving.
Elbow in movement but not excessive (above shoulders) is intentional foul. A normal pivot makes elbow move. Contact by these words means intentional. If it is excessive movement then flagrant. Players are responsible for their own elbows.

Now that's what this POE language means. It's not in the rules so you get many individual interpretations. Do check with your interpreters as mentioned above.

It does seem like the NHFS definitely wants a violation called every time when there is excessive elbow swinging with no contact by the following language in Rule 4.

4.24.8

It is not legal to swing arms and elbows excessively. This occurs when:

a. 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.

b. The aggressiveness with which the arms and elbows are swung could cause injury to another player if contacted.

Using this description as a basis, an official will promptly and unhesitatingly rule such action with arms and elbows a violation.

How Will Young Officials Know ???
 

Travesty. Agree 100%. Stupid NFHS rules editor.

There are a dozen or more contributors on this site that could do a much better job of writing and editing the rule book than the NFHS committee.

Point of Emphasis ...
 

True, because it was just a Point of Emphasis, and only for one year.

Are such rulings supposed to be passed down to new officials by discussions around a campfire, like the oral traditions of prehistoric people?

Hey NFHS rules editor. We have something new for you. It's called written language, and we even have printing presses.

Stupid NFHS rules editor.

Thankfully it doesn't happen that often. Explaining/ Backing up a call by saying it appeared in a Poe 5 years ago...not good.😞

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.

Law Of The Land ...
 

Did the NCAA actually come out with a new rule, casebook play, or Point of Emphasis that counteracted the "original" interpretation? Because the NFHS is just leaving us blowing in the wind.

If a NFHS Point of Emphasis falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it still exist?

As far as I know, the NFHS "Swinging Elbows Above The Shoulder Point Of Emphasis" is still the law of the land.

Stupid NFHS rules editor.

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.

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.”

Stupid NFHS Rules Editor ...
 

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."

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.

Swinging Elbows ...
 

(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)?

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.

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.

Agreed.

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.

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.

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.

Kiss up..

Yet I strangely and totally agree...

There was a major emphasis on this in the online state rules meeting for Ohio. On three or four straight slides in red/bold/italic letters it stated that contact with a swinging elbow (it did not simply say a moving elbow) is an IF.

At least one of us has applied for the job, but wasn't hired.