Excessive swinging of elbows

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Based on his description, there is nowayinhell that is a PC foul. It's a completely legal pivot as per NFHS rule 4-24-8:
"It is not legal to swing arms or elbows excessively. This occurs when arms and elbows are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arms is in excess of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot."

There was NO excessive elbow swinging and the elbows were NOT moving faster than the torso.

Those criteria have only been used...oh....forever.


Lah me.....

JR:

Read the portion I quoted in my OP. I agree with you, based upon the description of the play, that the post player did not violate NFHS R4-S24-A8 (and NCAA R4-S36-A7), but that does not absolve him of an infraction of the rules if he pivots and makes illegal contact with a defensive player who has a legal position on the court relative to the post player.

Let us look at the following play. Your teammate attempts a jump shot which he misses and I sky above everybody else (I am laughing so hard right now I can hardly type) and grab the rebound. You are standing behind and slightly to the side of me. I pivot as described in the play we are discussing and my elbow hits you in the chest and displaces you. I have committed a pushing foul and thus a player control foul. I did not swing my elbows excessively, but I fouled you none-the-less.

MTD, Sr.


P.S.: Thanks Camron for getting my back (JR see Camron's post #37).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

2009-10 NCAA-M POE

Excessive Swinging of the Elbows
Last year, there were increases in excessive swinging of the elbows. This action should not be ignored because of the associated danger to another player. Contact resulting from an illegally thrown elbow can cause serious injury. Consequently, excessive swinging of the elbow(s) is a point of emphasis.

When the arm and elbow, with the shoulder as a base (pivot) are swung with a speed that exceeds the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot, that action is considered to be excessive. Contact, after such an action, shall not be ignored but shall be called a flagrant foul. When the player’s arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung excessively but without contact, a violation has been committed.

When the arms and elbows and the rest of the body move with the same or similarly generated speed and contact occurs, that contact is not considered to be excessive. However, the contact is illegal, and a foul shall be assessed.

Further to this, I just e-mailed 4 very trust-worthy(to me, anyway ) sources that I know....2 current D1 mens officials and 1 each current D1/D2 womens officials. All are excellent rules people imo and all seemed to have the same take on this NCAA POE...as follows:

1) This POE applies to excessive swinging of the elbows only. There is some confusion as to how it will also apply to a normal, legal pivot when contact is made with an elbow above and below the neck of an opponent. That needs to be further clarified.

2) For elbows swung faster than the pivot:
(a) violation if no contact
(b) foul of some type for contact
(c) if the contact is above the neck, it has to be called intentional or flagrant.

3) elbows at the same speed as the pivot:
(a) no violation if no contact
(b) the positioning of the elbow is the determining factor if contact is made. You have to decide if the positioning of the elbow was inside the offensive player's normally allowed space or extended outside the normally allowed space.
(c) If the position of the elbow was inside the normally allowed space when contact occurs, any subsequent contact should be ruled incidental.
(d) If the position of the elbow was outside the normally allowed space, it should be a personal foul of some kind on the offensive player. But if the contact outside the normally allowed space also occurs above the neck of the defender, the foul then has to be ruled either intentional or flagrant.

I think that's basically exactly what I was saying, with the addition of the last part of 3(d) that says that contact outside the normally allowed space that is made above the neck having to now always be called intentional or flagrant in nature.

As I said, all four said that they thought some further clarification was needed.

Thoughts from other NCAA officials?

And please note that this is for NCAA only. Afaik, the NFHS rules already cited still apply.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

3) elbows at the same speed as the pivot:
(a) no violation if no contact
(b) the positioning of the elbow is the determining factor if contact is made. You have to decide if the positioning of the elbow was inside the offensive player's normally allowed space or extended outside the normally allowed space.
(c) If the position of the elbow was inside the normally allowed space when contact occurs, any subsequent contact should be ruled incidental.
(d) If the position of the elbow was outside the normally allowed space, it should be a personal foul of some kind on the offensive player. But if the contact outside the normally allowed space also occurs above the neck of the defender, the foul then has to be ruled either intentional or flagrant.

I think that's basically exactly what I was saying, with the addition of the last part of 3(d) that says that contact outside the normally allowed space that is made above the neck having to now always be called intentional or flagrant in nature.

Thanks for adding the highlighted block. I wasn't sure I agreed with you until you stated this. It wasn't clear that you allowed for this option when you said it couldn't possible be a PC foul when a player makes a legal pivot....but it can be a PC foul as you now have clarified in the red text above.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

1) Read the portion I quoted in my OP. I agree with you, based upon the description of the play, that the post player did not violate NFHS R4-S24-A8 (and NCAA R4-S36-A7), but that does not absolve him of an infraction of the rules if he pivots and makes illegal contact with a defensive player who has a legal position on the court relative to the post player.

2) Let us look at the following play. Your teammate attempts a jump shot which he misses and I sky above everybody else (I am laughing so hard right now I can hardly type) and grab the rebound. You are standing behind and slightly to the side of me. I pivot as described in the play we are discussing and my elbow hits you in the chest and displaces you. I have committed a pushing foul and thus a player control foul. I did not swing my elbows excessively, but I fouled you none-the-less.

And that's where I still completely disagree with you, Mark. From Hornet's original description, I can find NO evidence that the player with the ball made any illegal contact or that the defender did have a legal position on the court. The way that I read it, it was a legal pivot followed by contact. I'm sureasheck not aware of any rule that will allow us to call a foul on any player for making a legal pivot. If you know one, feel free to point it out. Tell me...what exactly did the player with the ball do that was illegal by rule according to Hornet's description?

2) If the player in your #2 above pivots with the ball in a normal fashion without swinging his elbow excessively or extending his elbow abnormally outside out of the usual allowed space, you have NO rules justification to call a foul on that player if contact occurs on that defender. And if you think that you do, cite me a rule, case play, etc. that will back it up. Neither NFHS 4-24-8 or NCAA 4-36-7 does that imo.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Thanks for adding the highlighted block. I wasn't sure I agreed with you until you stated this. It wasn't clear that you allowed for this option when you said it couldn't possible be a PC foul when a player makes a legal pivot....but it can be a PC foul as you now have clarified in the red text above.

The point that I was trying to make all along...and obviously not very well...was if the player with the ball
had his elbow outside his normally allowed space, then it wasn't a legal pivot if contact occurred. But if it was a legal pivot(elbow inside the normally allowed space--judgment call obviously), then you couldn't call a PC foul on the offensive player. That's the way that we've always called this type of play, I thought.

And what has to now be clarified from that NCAA POE is whether contact with an elbow on a defender above above the neck during a legal pivot is now to be ruled as either being intentional or flagrant in nature. There seems to be some confusion on that one.

[Judtech]

This was brought up at the pre season rules meeting I attended. As it was explained to me I thought it made sense. 4.36.7 was designed to help eliminate the rebounding/steal plays where you saw defenders swarming around the player with the ball and the player with the ball swinging their elbows back and forth while holding on to the ball to 'create space'. When read in that light it, at least to me, makes sense b/c that is a play we all see, although more at lower level.
Article 6 is used to help with cleaning up post play. On the women's side you are not going to have a lot of post players shooting turn around jumpers elevating over their defender. What you do have are post players with skilled footwork who use their bodies very well. So when they are turning into their defender you have situations where elbows are extended as part of a post move. By focusing on Article 6 B and C. (6.A is more for screen situations) the official can determine if the actions of the offensive player are legal, at least as far as elbows are concerned.
That is how it was explained to us. IMO, the OP falls under Article 6, but since the latest clarification came down the pipe, now falls under Article 7. I do agree that more direction is needed on excessive v intentional v common foul on these plays.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

...
And what has to now be clarified from that NCAA POE is whether contact with an elbow on a defender above above the neck during a legal pivot is now to be ruled as either being intentional or flagrant in nature. There seems to be some confusion on that one.

If I remember correctly I believe there was a video play from last year's NCAA-M presentation in which there was contact above the neck that was deemed incidental. The play involved multiple rebounds and a big white kid under the basket. I can't get access to those clips until tomorrow night.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

The people who feel that a "legal" pivot allows the pivoter to make illegal contact with an opponent and not be charged with a foul. A "legal" pivot means that the pivoter pivoted without violating the rules of traveling and nothing more. The word "legal" has no bearing as to whether or not a foul has been committed.

MTD, Sr.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The point that I was trying to make all along...and obviously not very well...was if the player with the ball
had his elbow outside his normally allowed space, then it wasn't a legal pivot if contact occurred. But if it was a legal pivot(elbow inside the normally allowed space--judgment call obviously), then you couldn't call a PC foul on the offensive player. That's the way that we've always called this type of play, I thought.

From the OP:

Originally Posted by Hornets222003

Also, later in the game, a post player makes a legal pivot with his elbows out and contacts a defender in the jaw. I deemed it a legal move (his elbows were not moving faster than his torso, and in my mind, I though the contact was incidental since the gaurd was in his space trying to knock the ball away.

This portion violates 4-24-6 and is illegal.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The people who feel that a "legal" pivot allows the pivoter to make illegal contact with an opponent and not be charged with a foul. A "legal" pivot means that the pivoter pivoted without violating the rules of traveling and nothing more. The word "legal" has no bearing as to whether or not a foul has been committed.

Oh? Then whyinhell does the very definition of a foul states that it involves ILLEGAL contact? Riddle me that, Batman!

If a player commits a foul with an over- extended elbow or pivots with his elbow moving faster than the fulcrum of his pivot, then that player has just committed an illegal pivot. He doesn't have to travel during that illegal pivot either to commit a violation. He may have committed a violation if the elbow was swung faster than the rest of the body while pivoting but no contact was made. That's an illegal pivot that hasn't got a damn thing to do with traveling. And if he makes contact during that illegal pivot, he's just committed a foul.

Your statement above makes zero sense, rules-wise, imo.

If you really think that any player on the court can commit a foul while performing a LEGAL act under the written rules, I'd sureasheck like to know where you came up with something like that. I sureasheck can't think of anything anywhere in the rules that espouses any philosophy like that.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If I remember correctly I believe there was a video play from last year's NCAA-M presentation in which there was contact above the neck that was deemed incidental. The play involved multiple rebounds and a big white kid under the basket. I can't get access to those clips until tomorrow night.

That was referenced today to me in an e-mail also. That's one of the reasons that the respondents I talked to today all felt that some further clarification of that POE that was cited above by you was necessary.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by sseltser

This portion violates 4-24-6 and is illegal.

Disagree. If the elbows are extended within the the normally allowed space of the player pivoting, then the player is performing a pivot that is perfectly legal by rule. He can only commit a foul if he performs an illegal pivot by extending his elbows outside his normally allowed space or he whacks an opponent with an elbow that is moving faster than the pivot.

And that's exactly the way that it's been called for the last 50 years afaik.

Are you really trying to see that it's illegal for a player with the ball to extend an elbow at ANY time while pivoting, no matter how far that elbow is extended?

WOW!

Just WOW!

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Are you really trying to see that it's illegal for a player with the ball to extend an elbow at ANY time while pivoting, no matter how far that elbow is extended?

The OP states the elbows were "out." I'm just not seeing how this could possibly be within his vertical space.

I think we are just discussing verbiage here, not actual application, but with the way the OP is worded, I can't rule out a PC. I'm not sure it was a PC, but I can't say it didn't happen.

And to answer your question, it is always an illegal position to have elbows extended beyond normal vertical space, whether pivoting or not. A foul doesn't occur until it hinders the opponent's normal offensive or defensive movements.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Oh? Then whyinhell does the very definition of a foul states that it involves ILLEGAL contact? Riddle me that, Batman!

If a player commits a foul with an over- extended elbow or pivots with his elbow moving faster than the fulcrum of his pivot, then that player has just committed an illegal pivot. He doesn't have to travel during that illegal pivot either to commit a violation. He may have committed a violation if the elbow was swung faster than the rest of the body while pivoting but no contact was made. That's an illegal pivot that hasn't got a damn thing to do with traveling. And if he makes contact during that illegal pivot, he's just committed a foul.

Your statement above makes zero sense, rules-wise, imo.

If you really think that any player on the court can commit a foul while performing a LEGAL act under the written rules, I'd sureasheck like to know where you came up with something like that. I sureasheck can't think of anything anywhere in the rules that espouses any philosophy like that.

JR:

You are a far better interpreter of the rules of basketball than your recent posts in this thread reveal.

A "legal" pivot movement of the ball handler's feet are those movements that are in compliance with the rules of traveling. The NFHS and NCAA Rules committees should never have used the word "legal" with the word "pivot" when discussing the improper swinging of the elbows.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Oh? Then whyinhell does the very definition of a foul states that it involves ILLEGAL contact? Riddle me that, Batman!

If a player commits a foul with an over- extended elbow or pivots with his elbow moving faster than the fulcrum of his pivot, then that player has just committed an illegal pivot. He doesn't have to travel during that illegal pivot either to commit a violation. He may have committed a violation if the elbow was swung faster than the rest of the body while pivoting but no contact was made. That's an illegal pivot that hasn't got a damn thing to do with traveling. And if he makes contact during that illegal pivot, he's just committed a foul.

Your statement above makes zero sense, rules-wise, imo.

If you really think that any player on the court can commit a foul while performing a LEGAL act under the written rules, I'd sureasheck like to know where you came up with something like that. I sureasheck can't think of anything anywhere in the rules that espouses any philosophy like that.

Well, I was agreeing with you but now you've clarified again such that I don't.

Making a legal pivot doesn't imply that a player can legally make contact. I can think of several otherwise legal actions that, once contact is included, become a foul.

Imagine a player, A1, holding the ball with B1 having textbook LGP just 1" off of A1's left hip. A1 now pivots such that the left foot is his pivot foot. A1 pivots 360 degrees....but to do so A1 had to displace B1 since there is no way A1 could pivot through all 360 degrees without passing through the space occupied by B1. It doesn't matter if the contact was with the butt, elbow, knee, belly, etc....extended or otherwise. It is still a foul on A1. But, had B1 not been in that spot with LGP, it would have been a pefectly legal pivot.

What I read the POE is to say is that, short of excessive swigning, that typical elbow contact can usually be ruled incidental. But it stops short of saying that all elbow contact is legal as long as it is not excessive.