Elbow Swinging II

[deecee]

My contention is not one that I agree/disagree with anyone. It is that 9 out of 10 times unless it is blatant then we have no call or defensive foul called.

I practice it is easy to say that here it is but here is where there is a big disconnect from rule book to reality.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by deecee

My contention is not one that I agree/disagree with anyone. It is that 9 out of 10 times unless it is blatant then we have no call or defensive foul called.

I practice it is easy to say that here it is but here is where there is a big disconnect from rule book to reality.

Deecee,

Maybe where you are, and if that's truly the case in your area then the officials making these calls need some serious clinic time on proper rules application.

Go back a few posts to what w_sohl and Nevadaref said:

"Who created the contact?"
"The defender is not required to give the offensive player with the ball any time or distance. The defender can legally be as close to the opposing player as he can get without making contact. If the offensive player then pivots and causes contact which places the defender at a disadvantage, the proper call is a player control foul."

These are the key elements that need to be applied, not some arbitrary interpretation the officials come up with on their own. It's absolutely wrong to penalize the defense for illegal contact initiated by an offensive player.

With respect to calling a violation for "excessive swinging of the arms/elbows (without contact)" per 9-13, the key word is "excessive". The purpose of this rule is to prevent the action of swinging the arms/elbows by the offensive player to clear space between them & the defender(s). Swinging arms and elbows are flat out dangerous. I'd much rather call a violation before contact, than wait for the contact and have to call either a player control, intentional or flagrant foul.

[deecee]

I agree. I always base my calls on advantage/disadvantage and who was the initiator of the contact. I am just saying that I personally allow an offensive player the right to pivot within reason and contact that happens here I usually no call.

It goes back to why is this contact MORE severe than other contact that we no call. Because it just happens to occur on the face? where and how do we judge severity of contact based on different parts of the body?

This is a similar argument we had to where we were going over a kick versus a punch. Some were judging them differently. I would have a hard time calling a foul either way on a clean pivot that causes contact, and is within the offensive players cylinder and the defensive player was in a legal position. My opinion is that contact is incindental.

If, however, I feel as though the contact is NOT incidental then more than likely I have a PC. If I feel its Malicious then I have an intentional or flagrant. If its excessive and there is no contact then I have no problem with the violation.

I am just arguing that so far on this thread it almost seems like a certainty that this type of contact HAS to be a foul. My position is, sometimes yes, and sometimes its incidental. Officials will take from this discussion, if that is the point and some will take it as an absolute, that ANY contact with the defenders face or head by the offensive player will be a PC foul, and we no that is not true.

So Billy and Nevada I am not disagreeing with the rule. I just interpret it a bit differently. And I do want to make a note that I am differentiating between pivoting within reason and legally to pivoting with the elbows extended simply to clear space between them and the defender.

[Adam]

deecee, I don't understand who two players can have the right to the same space. If an offensive player pivots into a defensive player's rightful space, it's not a clean pivot. How can it be?
The rules specifically say time and distance are not factors when the guarded player has the ball.