Excessive swinging of elbows

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

If the third defender was just playing post defense behind, then what you described would probably be a player control. Since you stated the defender was behind and trying to get the ball, that changes the play.

Why would the defender playing behind the player with the ball change the play in any way?

There is no difference rules-wise whether the defender plays behind, at the side or in front of a player with the ball. In all positions the defender can assume a legal, vertical stance as close as possible to the player with the ball. But no matter how close the defender gets, he still has to allow the player with the ball to make a legal pivot. If contact occurs with the elbow while the player with the ball is making a legal pivot, then the defender did not attain the legal, vertical stance needed by rule.

From Hornet's description, the player with the ball made a legal pivot as per the rule already cited.

Iow, there's nowayinhell it's probably player control just because the defender was behind the player with the ball. You have to judge each individual play by the action of that play solely.

And don't tell me you were taken out of context again either. That boat won't float.

[Judtech]

Nope, not taken out of context. It does not matter whether the post is being full fronted, 3/4 fronted, 1/2 fronted or being played from behind. What DOES change the play is what was posted on the second post from the OP. In the OP he stated that the 3rd defender was behind. If they are behind the post player and the post players elbow crashes into them, that would be a PC. However, inthe second post he stated the defender was behind was "trying to steal the ball". I don't know how you can attempt to steal a ball from behind without reaching through the offensive player. IMO, the actions of the defense changes the result of the play.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Nope, not taken out of context. It does not matter whether the post is being full fronted, 3/4 fronted, 1/2 fronted or being played from behind. What DOES change the play is what was posted on the second post from the OP. In the OP he stated that the 3rd defender was behind. If they are behind the post player and the post players elbow crashes into them, that would be a PC. However, inthe second post he stated the defender was behind was "trying to steal the ball". I don't know how you can attempt to steal a ball from behind without reaching through the offensive player. IMO, the actions of the defense changes the result of the play.

he can reach with his arms, but his body/face can be outside A1's space.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by sseltser

he can reach with his arms, but his body/face can be outside A1's space.

Agree completely. But if the player with the ball makes a legal pivot and contacts the defender in the body/face, then that defender HAS to be inside A1's space.

I can't cite a rule where A1's pivot as described by Hornet could be described as illegal.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Nope, not taken out of context. It does not matter whether the post is being full fronted, 3/4 fronted, 1/2 fronted or being played from behind. What DOES change the play is what was posted on the second post from the OP. In the OP he stated that the 3rd defender was behind. If they are behind the post player and the post players elbow crashes into them, that would be a PC. However, inthe second post he stated the defender was behind was "trying to steal the ball". I don't know how you can attempt to steal a ball from behind without reaching through the offensive player. IMO, the actions of the defense changes the result of the play.

Nope. Still completely wrong by rule. If a player makes a LEGAL pivot, it doesn't matter wherinthehell the defender is standing. The defender has the responsibility for the contact if ther pivot is LEGAL. And I can't thinl of any rule that would make that pivot illegal, as described by Hornet.

Basic stuff.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope. Still completely wrong by rule. If a player makes a LEGAL pivot, it doesn't matter wherinthehell the defender is standing. The defender has the responsibility for the contact if ther pivot is LEGAL. And I can't thinl of any rule that would make that pivot illegal, as described by Hornet.

Basic stuff.

I would like to actually see a rules reference on that one. I am picturing a post defender standing straight up while the post player pivots with their elbows out and catches the defender right in the chin. The pivot was legal, but not the elbows.

[MathReferee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

In all positions the defender can assume a legal, vertical stance as close as possible to the player with the ball. But no matter how close the defender gets, he still has to allow the player with the ball to make a legal pivot. If contact occurs with the elbow while the player with the ball is making a legal pivot, then the defender did not attain the legal, vertical stance needed by rule.

Serious question: Is this comment in bold supported by rule? I know 4-23-1 gives us the guideline that there is no minimum distance a defender must give for guarding, as you pointed out. However, I have just never read anything about giving an offensive player room to make a legal pivot.

In regards to the play, I agree with Jurassic in that you have to see these plays on a case by case basis. If elbows are extended in order to create space and they make contact with a defender I am going with PC more times than not. To echo someone else that asked, wasn't this a POE for NCAA last year after the Hansborough incident? I seem to recall Adams viewing this type of contact as a PC foul and possibly intentional.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AustinRef

...To echo someone else that asked, wasn't this a POE for NCAA last year after the Hansborough incident? I seem to recall Adams viewing this type of contact as a PC foul and possibly intentional.

Look above your post.

[MathReferee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Look above your post.

Yeah, timing is awesome...

EDIT: Or, actually reading through the whole thread first woudl help...