Vid request: UCLA v Arizona - F1

[MechanicGuy]

This is a tough one, even on replay. A1 clearly doesn't see B1 and isn't really clearing space or warding him off. But, at the same time, his arm IS in motion so it's not quite as simple as B1 just running into A1's stationary arm/hand.

Curious to see what Tony would think about it after a second look.

Unless someone above me told me this play was an offensive foul, I'd be content with a no call.

And Sean Miller is a shit.

Common foul, not excessive or unnecessary IMO. No WIF.

[BillyMac]

NFHS: Contact above the shoulders, no excessive swinging: intentional foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

NFHS: Contact above the shoulders, no excessive swinging: intentional foul.

NFHS 2012-13 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.
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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

NFHS 2012-13 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.
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.

Billy, those are all NFHS guidance for contact with the elbows. On the play in question was question the contact was made with an open hand. Additionally, that was published by the NFHS while the NCAA had a mandatory F1 ruling for contact above the shoulders, which was rescinded the next year returning all plays to the judgment of the on court officials. I would not apply that NFHS POE to such a play in a HS game.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Billy, those are all NFHS guidance for contact with the elbows. On the play in question was question the contact was made with an open hand ... I would not apply that NFHS POE to such a play in a HS game.

Knowing that the clip was from a college game, I clearly indicated on both of my posts in this thread, "NFHS", for those of us who officiate high school games.

However, Nevadaref's point about NFHS "elbows" is well taken.

Do high school officials have to limit these "contact above the shoulders" penalties to only "elbows", or can purpose and intent expand the interpretation to upper arms, forearms, wrists, and hands?

The purpose and intent of the Point of Emphasis was "reducing concussions and decreasing excessive contact situations".

Nevadaref does make a good point, "elbow" is specifically mentioned three times in the Point of Emphasis.

[bucky]

The NFHS/NCAA point was regarding an offensive player, typically with the ball, performing abnormal movement. There were instances, perhaps while rebounding, where the player would not have the ball, but again, it was more in line with the player performing an aggressive act, and again, typically with elbows. The OP play involved a player without the ball, their hands (not elbows), and a non-aggressive (IMO) play. This is kinda the reason why I questioned it. It was an abnormal play involving a defender running into an outstretched arm/hand of an offensive player without the ball. Consider how to officiate it if the defender ran into a bent elbow of the offensive player. Adjudicate differently? Think of cutters running into the hands of defenders. There are instances where abnormal plays such as these can happen. Each will have its own nuances that make our judgement valuable. No?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

This is a tough one, even on replay. A1 clearly doesn't see B1 and isn't really clearing space or warding him off. But, at the same time, his arm IS in motion so it's not quite as simple as B1 just running into A1's stationary arm/hand.

Curious to see what Tony would think about it after a second look.

Unless someone above me told me this play was an offensive foul, I'd be content with a no call.

And Sean Miller is a shit.

Padilla made the original team control foul call. Tony and John went to the table together for the monitor review and kept it as a common foul. So he did get a second look. I have this as clearly warring off the defender with a straight arm which is out-stretched and not legal.

[bucky]

Thanks Indiana. Looks to me as if L had initial call, not Higgins who was C. Could the T have been avoided if the ball was inbounded on the side of the basket where the foul occurred and not on the side closest to Miller? That is a possibility.

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Padilla made the original team control foul call. Tony and John went to the table together for the monitor review and kept it as a common foul. So he did get a second look. I have this as clearly warring off the defender with a straight arm which is out-stretched and not legal.

I know. But he can't rescind that foul.
I'm wondering if he would have a foul at all on second look.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

This is a tough one, even on replay. A1 clearly doesn't see B1 and isn't really clearing space or warding him off. But, at the same time, his arm IS in motion so it's not quite as simple as B1 just running into A1's stationary arm/hand.

Curious to see what Tony would think about it after a second look.

Unless someone above me told me this play was an offensive foul, I'd be content with a no call.

And Sean Miller is a shit.

Extended arms by post players has been emphasized in NCAA men's for a couple years now. The offensive player was not legal.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk