I had a situation this weekend where the player with the ball has a defender playing him extremely aggressively and tight. The offensive player gets the ball at his chest and gets his elbows out to get himself some space. I've been taught that if the elbows stay in the framework of the body as the player pivots you have no foul, even though there is contact with the defender. Much the same as a rebounder chinning the ball and creating space. Yes, excessive swinging is a violation but what are your thoughts on this type of play. It's not popular when when of those elbows makes contact.

As I envision this, I have a foul. If the offense inititates contact, and it's deemed to be illegal (elbow contact has a smaller threshold for this, IMO), foul. The defender is entitled to his spot, no matter how close it is to the offensive player's spot. Find another way to create space.

I have trouble with this one, too, Rick. What I've been told is that if the elbows create much space, it's a foul, just as if the offender had pushed with the shoulder or forearm. However, I've also been told that the elbow rule supercedes the foul rule, and if the elbows are swung separately from the body it's a violation. If the body is moving, too, then there's no call. I tend to prefer the foul scenario with the addition that if there's any intent to use the elbow as a projectile, it's a T. But I don't call it real consistently, either.

Your point is well taken. What's your take on 4-24-8a, if it describes what is illegal but if its not in excess of the rest of the body as it rotates is it then deemed legal?

My understanding is that the threshold for a non-contact violation is different than for a contact foul.

See, that's the big question. Here's how I wish I would call it:

1) if there's no contact, judge whether the swinging of the elbow is in excess of the rotation of the body, then either violation or nothing. Unless I judge that there was an intent to elbow someone in particular, which just happened to miss, then I've got a T for unsportsmanlike.

2) if there's contact, that displaces or merits a call because of the amount of contact, then it's a foul of the personal kind. If it appears that there was an intent to harm, and it connects, it's flagrant.

Man it looks so simple when it's in the pixels. Not nearly this easy on the floor.

That is describing a violation. When there is no contact, you call the violation. If there is contact, after and part of the elbow swing, you can call the violatoin or a foul since both have occured.

Clearing out space with the elbows is a foul when contact occurs.

Clarification
 

If player with ball swings elbows outside of body movement, it is a violation. If player with ball pivots with elbows out, ball at chin, then no violation. If player makes contact with defender with elbows, then foul determination follows normal guidelines, including whether or not defender has established legal guarding position.

I'm good with excessive elbow swinging as a violation (no contact) and for calls involving intent. I'm struggling with a player that pivots with their arms in a passive elbows in style vs. a player pivoting with the elbows out. Does the offense have a right to that space or can the defense crowd in to deny it. The offense is trying to maintain their space using basketball moves not lash out with the intent of injury.

The defensive player can occupy any spot on the floor not previously occupied. If the elbows violate that spot, pc foul. Once again, A1 needs to find another way to create space.

We must remember that not all contact is a foul.

Rule 4-27-1 states: "The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul."

Rule 4-27-3 states: "Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."

From these two articles, I infer (possibly incorrectly) that if I contact a defensive player with my elbows without putting him at a disadvantage (and not flagrantly), this does not constitute a foul.

Of course, to make things more difficult, Rule 4-24-6 states that: "The extension of the elbows when the hands are on the hips or when the hands are held hear the chest or when the arms are held more or less horizontally are examples of the illegal positions used." Does this also apply, however, to a person controlling the ball?...

Eric,
The original post has the offensive player "creating" space with contact. This is, in my book, the definition of advantage. Find another way to create space.

Respectfully, I disagree. In nearly every situation I have seen, the offensive player is creating space that he should have anyway. (The overzealous defensive player is leaning in on the player with the ball.)

In HS, though, I do agree there should be a call, one way or the other. If the defensive player is crowding the player with the ball, making it difficult to move, it's a call against the defense. If the offensive player is trying to make room to pass or to get out of a trap, it's a call on the offense.

If the defense is leaning, it's a foul before we get to the elbow. If the defense is merely "crowding," by which I mean maintaining an established position right next to the offensive player. There is no requirement to give the offensive player space. Therefore, if he's creating space by illegal contact, it's a foul.

What do you mean by "space that he should have anyway?" By what rule "should" it be there?

Like I said, if the defender is leaning, he does not have LGP, and is most likely responsible for any contact. But that wasn't the premise of the original post. I don't care if the defender is touching the offensive player with his chest, as long as he is vertical and in LGP. Creating space is a foul if it's done with illegal contact.

There are only three situations where your statement can be true and none of them apply. Basically, no player owns a space they don't already occupy unless...
<LI>they are airborne and that space was open when they jumped
<LI>they are moving without the ball and the opponent doesn't allow time and distance
<LI>that space is above them (verticality).


Aside from these, the have the right to nothing.

If the defensive player was already making contact that has not been determined to be a foul, additional contact from the offense doesn't make it so.



If the defender is crowding the player with the ball, making it hard to move, that's what I call good defense.

Re: Clarification
 

In a situation like this, with the offender swinging his elbows, legal guarding posistion does not need to be estableshed in order for a player control foul to be called.

Quote:

If the defender is crowding the player with the ball, making it hard to move, that's what I call good defense.

Rule 4-44-5: "The offensive player whether on the floor or airborne, may not "clear out" or cause contact within the defender's vertical plane which is a foul."

Rule 4-44-6: "The defender may not "belly up" or use the lower part of the body or arms to cause contact outside his/her vertical plane which is a foul."

The offensive player may not use his elbows to "clear out," but the defensive player may not "belly up" either. It is not good defense, but, rather, poor officiating, if a player can "cause contact outside of his/her vertical plane" without being called for a foul. I see this all the time in HS games: A1 gets trapped and is slowly pushed off balance. Is a foul called? NO, that's just good defense. Instead, A1 is called for traveling.

Rule 4-23-3b: "The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs."

Is it possible to contact a stationary opponent without moving toward him?

Also, Rule 4-27-3: "Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."

Compare that with: "If the defender is crowding the player with the ball, making it hard to move, that's what I call good defense."

Pivoting is a normal offensive movement, and "crowding the player with the ball" hinders that movement.

[Edited by Eric Huechteman on Apr 20th, 2004 at 01:57 AM]

Pardon? You're saying that if a player with the ball pivots INTO a defender who has established a legal spot on the court, then the foul is on the defender? Don't think so. The defender can always legally establish a spot on the floor as close to the player as he can get, short of actual contact, as long as the defender gets to that spot before his opponent. Once the defender has established that legal spot, how could you possibly call a foul on them if an opponent pivots INTO their legal position? If you're gonna call anything, it has to be the other way around.

Eric,
No one said the defender was bellying up. Once again, if he's doing this, we have a foul before the elbow even makes contact, thus the elbow is incidental after-the-whistle contact (provided it's not flagrant or intentional). We're talking about a defender who is not breaking his vertical plane, but his right up agaist the offense. A stationary defender. The book says there is no distance requirement for playing defense on the player with the ball.

Eric, you can't back into defining a foul this way. You're right, pivoting is normal offensive movement, but so is driving to the hoop, shooting, etc. A defensive player's job is to hinder that movement, as long as it's done legally. If the defense is stationary, verticle, and in LGP, I don't see how you could possibly not call a pc foul when the offense uses his elbow to "clear out" space.

Re: Re: Clarification
 

I'm not talking about swinging elbows when I mention LGP, I'm talking about pivoting with the elbows out as in when the ball is properly chinned after a rebound or pass. These are different situations. Swinging elbows by a player with the ball is a violation, even without contact. If you pivot with your elbows out and do not make contact, there is no violation and no foul. If contact occurs, you have to determine who initiated the contact. If the defender runs into the elbow, who is the foul on? If both players are moving simulataneously, who is the foul on? In each case, you have to determine which player was acting in a manner entitled to by the rules.

Eric, when Jurassic and others use the word "crowding" they don't mean pushing or bumping. They just mean taking all the space that's right next to the player with the ball. The rule book makes it clear that with the ball near the chin and both elbows out, the elbows are illegal if there's contact. The defender is entitled to that space right next to the ball-handler.

This is important when you think about a double team. If the two defenders are taking up two-thirds of the ball-handler's immediate surroundings, there's not much choice for the ball-handler, and that's good defense. No pushing or bumping is needed to really screw up the offense. That kind of crowding is legal, and if elbows are introduced into the situation, they are illegal.

Crowding doesn't mean contact. It means getting so close that the offense has no room to move. If there is contact that has an effect on the play, then it's not crowding, it's pushing.

The definition of defense is to hinder the offenses movement. They are only restricted to doing it without creating contact...not by being required to give the offense room to move.

This an extreamly good subject to address because I had 2 cases in one game last weekend(not that far apart). Case #1 A1 rebounds the ball comes straight down contacting B2 with his elbow to the shoulder knocking B2 to the floor no foul or violation in my judgement Case #2 A1 comes down with the ball swinging away contacts B1 side of the head so I call a T (the famous coach complaint "call it both ways")

Hmmm, ball's live. . . illegal contact. . . Could you have something other than a T here?

Nope, it's not a T. If A1 <b>contacts</b> B1 during a live ball with the elbow, it should be a player control foul, or possibly an intententional or flagrant personal foul, dependant on the premeditation or excessive violence involved(your judgement). Contact with the elbow during a dead ball would be a T(again your judgement). Swinging the elbow(s) and missing during a live ball is a violation. Deliberately swinging the elbow(s)and missing during a dead ball could also be a T, if you judged that as an unsporting act.

HA!! Beatcha! :p

I, too, could have posted a cursory "you're wrong", and decreased my response time. Instead, I took the high road and decided to inform and educate the masses on the proper application of this rule. And the thanks that I get for doing so is some churl essentially saying "Nanny, Nanny, Boo Boo" to me. Well, some day you will recognize my brilliance and give me my proper due!

Hey, that "MTD Sr. post reply" course that I took is actually taking hold, I see. :D

Instead of spoonfeeding eager young officials, I prefer to use a Socratic approach. I did not merely post "You're wrong". I left clues like breadcrumbs and then simply asked a question.

Plus I cut down on my post time! :)

3 minutes to type your original response!!! :D

I guess everything slows down with age. ;)

Da I dont know but I did leave the most important point I called a common foul on B1 non shooting before the T ( I should'nt type that early in the morning)And for information purposes you can have a T on a live ball but 99% of the time it's non contact and on a dead ball

Eric:

When "A1 is trapped and is slowly pushed off balance," if there is contact between a defender and A1 while A1 is in the off balance position, the foul is charged to the defender. If A1 regains his/her balance without making contact with the defender there is no foul. But, if there is contact between A1 and the defender when A1 attempts to return to a more upright position, the foul is charged to the defender.

Please see my postings in the Legal Guarding Position Thread.

I understand the T
 

Had a couple of situations this past weekend.

Player A1 if facing defender and swings ball followed elbow at head of defender and hits him with elbow. Partner calls an immediate T. I had to think about it but agreed with his call.

Backcourt. Two defenders both in player with ball. They are very agressive, but do not reach or initiate contact. After sevearl seconds of this, offensive player gets frustrated and starts swinging elbows to gain some room. I call exessive swinging and award ball to defense. Got a lot of help from the fans who were yelling to get the defense off of the player.

I understand the T for coming down with rebound swinging and hitting opponents head. A head shot is a head shot.

Very seldom do I post short one or two word replys. If anything I would thing that I am noted for my lengthy posts with plenty of quotes from rules (NFHS, NCAA, FIBA, and NBA/WNBA) and casebook plays.

Re: I understand the T
 

Please explain to me how you can charge A1 with a technical foul for a live ball contact foul. By definitiona (NFHS and NCAA) a live ball contact foul is a personal foul. A personal foul is either a common foul, a foul committed against a player in the act of shooting, intentional, or flagrant.

In your play you had a personal foul. The decision your partnera had to make was: Was A1 fouls a common foul (player control foul), intentional foul, or a flagrant foul.

MTD, Sr.

My guess
 

I didn't make that call, but I would guess that my partner determined that the action was an unsportsmanlike act instead of a flagrant foul. Similar to taunting during a live ball.

It may have not been the correct interpretation of the rules, but the difference is that the person stayed in the game and the rest of the tournament.

This tournament was 17U with the best teams in the country and about 75-100 college coaches in attendance. Not that this changes the rules, but that is the way it was called.

Re: My guess
 

A1 swinging his elbows may well have been unsportsmanlike, but it was definitely not an act of taunting, the only factor that governs this play is that A1 made illegal contact with B1 while the ball was live, and that makes it a personal foul. Your partner then has to make a judgement as to whether it is a common foul, an intentional foul, or a flagrant foul.

Re: Re: My guess
 

I beg to differ. The act of swinging the elbows at the player's head precedes the contact. I would judge the act as unsportsmanlike and call a T. The contact was just the icing on the cake. The unsportsmanlike part of the player technical rule only lists some examples and clearly says "but is not limited to". So, it is up to the official to determine what other things are unsportsmanlike.

You could call it fighting...which is clearly a T according to rule 10-3-10. It can be fighting because rule 4-18 clearly states that fighing can happen when the ball is live or dead and is based on the attempt to strike and does not depend on whether contact is made or not.

Re: Re: Re: My guess
 

Camron, you have forgotten one very important thing, see the whole play. I agree with you that one could possible see the contact as fighting but in this case this is highly unlikely. One should not go looking for things that aren't there. KISS is the best way to handle this play. This is a personal foul and only one of three types occured: common, intentional, or flagrant. Do not apply rules that do not apply to the play.

Camron, you have forgotten one very important thing, see the whole play. I agree with you that one could possible see the contact as fighting but in this case this is highly unlikely. One should not go looking for things that aren't there. KISS is the best way to handle this play. This is a personal foul and only one of three types occured: common, intentional, or flagrant. Do not apply rules that do not apply to the play.

[/B][/QUOTE]Uh, Mark, somehow I find it strange to read this coming from you, as in the past you have advocated:
1) Calling <b>three</b> technical fouls for the same act- i.e. a player jumping off of a teammate, who is on his hands and knees, and then dunking the ball.
2) Giving out <b>two</b> technical fouls to an opponent for a single act-i.e. reaching over the OOB line and then touching the ball while it was being held for a throw-in- one T for reaching OOB on a throw-in after being warned(R9-2-11PENALTY2), and the other T for subsequently touching the ball OOB(R10-3-11).

One should not go looking for things that aren't there? KISS? Do not apply rules that do not apply to the play?

LOL!

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Apr 30th, 2004 at 01:24 PM]

Uh, Mark, somehow I find it strange to read this coming from you, as in the past you have advocated:
1) Calling <b>three</b> technical fouls for the same act- i.e. a player jumping off of a teammate, who is on his hands and knees, and then dunking the ball.
2) Giving out <b>two</b> technical fouls to an opponent for a single act-i.e. reaching over the OOB line and then touching the ball while it was being held for a throw-in- one T for reaching OOB on a throw-in after being warned(R9-2-11PENALTY2), and the other T for subsequently touching the ball OOB(R10-3-11).

One should not go looking for things that aren't there? KISS? Do not apply rules that do not apply to the play?

LOL!

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Apr 30th, 2004 at 01:24 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]


First, lets address Play #2 above. I have NEVER, I repeat NEVER, advocated such a ruling. The casebook play is quite specific; it is only technical foul charged to the defender, and if the defensive team has yet to be warned for crossing the boundary plane during a throw-in, it is to also receive a warning.


Now, lets address Play #1. The play in question occured in 1991 or 1992 in the NW Ohio Regional of the Ohio State Games (similar to New York's Empire State Games). The game group was boys' 16U. Team B was getting beat by about 35 points in the second half and its coach had already received a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct it the first half and a player from the team had received early in the second half. The whole team was made up of a bunch of jerks. With about three or four minutes left in the game B1 intercepted a pass and started to drive in for an uncontested layup. B2 yelled to him to wait up and then proceeded to get down on his hands and knees in the free throw lane and B1 then proceeded to get up on his back and then dunked the ball. NFHS R10-S3-A7e states: "A player shall not commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as climibing on or lifting a teammate to secure a greater height." B1 and B2's false double foul caused the ball to be dead and then B1 proceeded to dunk a dead ball for a second technical foul. Granted this is a play that one would normally find only in a casebook or rules exam, but it is quite possible to find in such tournaments as the Ohio Games with undisciplined teams entered. I do not think that this type of play would ever occur in a real high school or college game.


So how do the two plays that we have discussed have anything to do with the play being discussed in this thread.

So the LOSING team did these things?!? Why not just call it?

I would have loved to have called it but in this tournament it just wasn't possible due to the time of tournament management it had. It was not the best. My partner muddled through to the end, took our money and never did the tournament again.

How is contact caused by A1 moving into B1 a foul on B1, if B1 got that spot WITHOUT contacting A1?

You conveniently ignored the following play in the other thread, so I'll repeat it.

B1 has LGP and is vertical, but loses their balance and leans back, A1 then occupies the space that B1 had before they leaned back and lost their vertical position, B1 then straightens back to vertical and pushes A1 with their chest. Based on how you'd call the other play, A1 just committed a PC foul, because they got pushed for occupying space that was once occupied by a player's vertical plane, even though that space was no longer occupied.

blindzebra:

It is not my intent to be mean, but I have no idea what you are discussing, and just what does it have to do with this thread.

MTD, Sr.

You said, "If there is contact between A1 and the defender when A1 attempts to return to a more upright position, the foul is charged to the defender," and " Please see my postings in the Legal Guarding Position Thread."

The play I posted in both the LGP thread and this thread is one I'd like you to explain.

Once again, if A1 can push B1 in that first play after they
left a vertical position and B1 occupied that space without making contact...yet you say it is a foul on B1... would you not need to call a PC foul on A1 in the play I outlined above, since B1 had a right to that vacated space that used to be their "cylinder of verticallity."

blindzebra:

I am being consistent in both plays. The problem is that the concept of verticalty applies to both the offense and the defense. I am sorry that you and everybodyelse who disagrees with my position do not accept that concept that verticality applies to both the offense and the defense, but is a fact of basketball life.

Just because everybodyelse says I am wrong does not mean I am wrong. Unlike too many politicians, when I am asked to make a rules interpretation, I do not run a flag up a flag pole to see which way the wind is blowing. I base my interpretations upon the rules and casebook plays that apply to the situation. If the play is an exceptionally unsual one I will send my intepretation to the editor(s) of the appropriate rules committees as well as some of the current and past members of the appropriate rules committees for vetting.

The play being discussed in this thread as well as the other thread are very pedestrian plays If either of these two plays were on the NFHS rules examination that my student officials must pass to become registered by the OhioHSAA I would expect them to get the play(s) correct.

I guess you could say that I am not going to admit that I am wrong because I am the only one advocating my position as you requested in the other thread. My position is the correct one. If you find my attitude arrogant there is really nothing I can do about that; I just call them as the rules tell me to call them.

MTD, Sr.

So would you call a PC foul in my play, or not? If you would call the defense for being pushed when they had verticality and LGP in the first case, would you call A1 for a PC foul for legally entering B1's vacated vertical plane then getting pushed by B1?

You have yet to show one rule or case play that shows your sole point of view, NONE of your previous plays fit the first play.

blindzebra:

Please email me at [email protected]. Thank you.

MTD, Sr.

Aren't you gonna answer the questions, Mark? Others are interested in your reply too.

I have given my interpretations for the two plays. The questions have been asked as answered.

Funny, I could have sworn I've yet to see you answer my question about, if B1 has LGP and is vertical, then loses their balance and leans back so that one leg is extended in front of their body so they are no longer vertical...sounds identical to the play that started all of this...A1 then enters that vacated space above B1's extended leg WITHOUT CONTACT and is vertical, then B1 moves back to a vertical position and contacts A1 knocking A1 over.

What is your call? Based on how you called the origional play you must believe this is a PC foul, right?

JR, where do we sign up? I wish to obtain that certification! ;)

Mark, I'm not calling you arrogant, but I don't understand your position. I think you're saying that the cylinder of verticality is above the pivot foot (which in the original play is extended frontward from the rest of the body). But the part that puzzles me is how there can be any verticality at all when the player's body isn't vertical. Once he moves away from vertical, doesn't he give up his rights to that space?

As I read these posts I get the impression that there may be disagreement regarding whether a player with the ball under the chin with elbows out (i.e., chinning the ball) is in a legal offensive position (if there is such a concept).

Clearly, if the player with the ball holds out a fully extended stiff arm horizontally with the intent to hold off the player from getting close to the ball, that would not be considered legal (even though he claimed that space first). In such a case, a defensive player initiating contact with the arm to get closer to the ball should not be called for the foul (should they?). Would this be a PC foul?

I get the impression that Rainmaker is stating that holding the ball under the chin with the elbows out is a similar situation. And, if the defender initiates contact with the elbow to get closer to the ball, then it is a PC foul on the offense...even if the player with the ball is not pivoting or moving the elbows. Rainmaker states..."The defender is entitled to that space right next to the ball-handler". That can't be right...can it? Coaches have been teaching "chinning the ball" for years.

And, there should be a distinction made between "creating space" and "claiming space". Is Snagwells also also trying to say...find another way to claim space?

I realize the original thread was describing a "creating space" situation, but some of the responses seemed to go a little bit too far. That is, what is legal space that can be claimed.

Could be, depending on disadvantage illegally conferred.

I don't think I specified whether the ball-handler was moving or not moving the elbows. If the defender just walks into a stationary elbow, I've got nothin'. But if the elbow moves toward the defender at all, it's PC. Chinning is legal, but the elbows technically speaking aren't within the allowable space, so if they make contact, it's a PC

True - you're only wrong if I say you're wrong.

Chinning is legal, but the elbows technically speaking aren't within the allowable space, so if they make contact, it's a PC

[/B][/QUOTE]Iow, chinning is legal but the elbows are outside the player's "cone of verticality". Right?

Iow, chinning is legal but the elbows are outside the player's "cone of verticality". Right? [/B][/QUOTE]

Uh, yeah...it was right on the tip of my tongue, I couldn't quite remember the proper wording....