Originally Posted by sseltser (Post 681113)

From the OP:
This portion violates 4-24-6 and is illegal.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 680948)

1) And you're treating 4-24-8 as if it doesn't exist. And 4-24-8 specifically refers to excessive and illegal elbow swinging, which is what we're discussing. Not all elbow swinging is excessive and illegal. If it was, any pivot with your arms out in a normal position would also be illegal. Do you really think that's the case?

2) There is nowayinhell you can call a PC foul or a violation on any offensive player with the ball while that player is making a LEGAL pivot. There is nothing written anywhere in the rules that will allow you to do so. To call either, you must have an illegal act of some kind to occur. And an legal pivot is NOt an illegal act. To say otherwise is simply ridiculous imo.

We're never going to agree. May I suggest that you take this to your local or state rules interpreter and ask them if an offensive player with the ball can ever be called for a PC foul or a violation while making a legal pivot.

Originally Posted by Kelvin green (Post 681178)

I have to disagree with you on this. There are several rules at play.

The elbow swing does not have to be excessive,

<font color = red>If the elbow extends outside the vertical plane the responsibility for contact belongs to the offense. If the defender is inside the offensive space the it is a defensive foul.</font>
There are plenty of pivots that are wide- There are plenty of pivots that extend into other players

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 681150)

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

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 681150)

1) 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.

2) 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.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 681184)

As I stated in my most recent post, I have no idea why the NFHS and NCAA Rules Committees would use the word "legal" with the word pivot. Just say pivot, and if the player with the ball pivots in such a manner that causes illegal contact with the defender then the player with the ball has committed a foul.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 681186)

1) And I've been saying is that the same is basically true for an elbow that isn't being excessively swung. That action is legal even if the elbow is extended outside the offensive player's normally allowed space and doesn't make contact. It is a foul once contact is included though. Iow, it's a legal action that, once contact is included, becomes an illegal action. And when it becomes an illegal action, that also made the pivot illegal because the illegal action is part of the pivot. I think that we're both practically saying the exact same thing, but maybe getting hung up on the verbiage.

2) The people that I have talked to about this all agree and say that does need clarification.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 681188)

I agree. You have no idea. :D

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 681313)

Sometimes, typed words don't clearly convey the thoughts of any of us...I really think we're probably, likely, hopefully talking the same thing.