Vid request: UCLA v Arizona - F1

[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that was published by the NFHS while the NCAA had a mandatory F1 ruling for contact above the shoulders, which was rescinded the next year returning all plays to the judgment of the on court officials.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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

The NFHS ... point was regarding an offensive player, typically with the ball, performing abnormal movement ...

The NFHS Point of Emphasis does address abnormal movement (excessive swinging), but it also addresses normal pivoting movements: An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.

But how is an official with less than seven years experience supposed to know this contact above the shoulders 2012-13 Point of Emphasis?

Stupid NFHS.