Excessive swinging of elbows

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by sseltser

Just because arm swinging isn't "excessive" doesn't mean that illegal contact wasn't created by the elbows. Excessive swinging isn't the only way for elbow swinging to be illegal.

Oh? And do you think it's then OK to ignore the rest of NFHS rule 4-24?

A player with the ball is allowed to legally pivot. And from Hornet's description, I can't think of any rule that would make that pivot illegal in any way.

If anybody can find one and cite it though, I'd certainly be glad to listen.

[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 jurassic referee

oh? And do you think it's then ok to ignore the rest of nfhs rule 4-24?

A player with the ball is allowed to legally pivot. And from hornet's description, i can't think of any rule that would make that pivot illegal in any way.

If anybody can find one and cite it though, i'd certainly be glad to listen.

4-24-6

[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 Judtech

If you would focus attention on 4.36.6 B and C of the hymnal you will see that this very well COULD be a PCF. If the offensive players arms were near ones chest or were held approximately horizontal to the floor when contact is made it would be a foul. There is even a nice italicized note that says: These illegal positions are most commonly used when rebounding, screening or in various aspects of post play

Golly gee, I got me one of them there NCAA rule books too. And I just got somebody to read it to me.

NCAA Rule4-36-7:
The following shall be considered excessive swinging:
(a) when arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung about while using the shoulder as pivots, and [b]the speed of the extended arm(s) and elbow(s) exceeds that of the rest of the body as it rotates with hips as the pivot point[b]: or
(b) When the speed and vigor with the arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung is such that that unhury could result in aniother player when contacted.

Well, I'll be damned. The NCAA and NFHS rules are almost identical. And under both rulesets, the pivot as described by Hornets was a legal pivot.

Maybe next time you could focus your attention on the applicable rule instead of taking something out of context from another one.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by sseltser

4-24-6

That describes contact on a defender who has a legal position. Rule 4-24-8 describes what a player can do while legally pivoting. According to Hornet's description of the play, the pivot was legal. That means the defender's vertical stance has to be illegal if contact occurs.

Apples and oranges...and 4-24-6 isn't germane to the discussion if the player with the ball makes a legal pivot.

[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]

I am not taking you out of context, you obviously believe that Article 5 NOT Article 6 is the applicable rule on this play. IMO Article 6 is the supercendent rule application, especially in light of the Note section at the end.
I am not arguing the pivot, I am arguing the elbows.

[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.

[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.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

That describes contact on a defender who has a legal position. Rule 4-24-8 describes what a player can do while legally pivoting. According to Hornet's description of the play, the pivot was legal. That means the defender's vertical stance has to be illegal if contact occurs.

Apples and oranges...and 4-24-6 isn't germane to the discussion if the player with the ball makes a legal pivot.

Just a clarification question: if a player is holding his elbows as in 4-24-6 and pivoting, do you consider this a legal pivot?

In the OP, the way I read it, is that A1 complies with with 4-24-8, but is not complying with 4-24-6. If contact occurs between A1's extended (and illegal) elbow into B1's jaw, I think this could very well be a PC foul.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

I am not taking you out of context, you obviously believe that Article 5 NOT Article 6 is the applicable rule on this play. IMO Article 6 is the supercendent rule application, especially in light of the Note section at the end.
I am not arguing the pivot, I am arguing the elbows.

What rulebook are you looking at? I cited NCAA rule 4-36-7 out of THIS year's rule book. That's the applicable rule. I NEVER mentioned Article 5.

The play being discussed is a player with the ball pivoting and contacting a defender with an elbow DURING that pivot, as described by Hornet. How can you NOT argue the freaking pivot? The call depends SOLELY on whether A1 made a legal pivot.

That's enough for me tonight.

[Judtech]

You're right you said 7 not 5, typo on my part.
I was using the pivot foot, but I think you are using the entire movement as the pivot. In that case I am going to say that in the OP the pivot was illegal based on aritcle 6 and even if I was using article 7 I would look at item B. The 'vigor' part of speed and vigor would seem to come into play.
This is where the defense actions come into play. If they player is reaching over/around/under and is preventing the post player from pivoting then contact is on the defender. The plays I am thinking of in that situation make it difficult to impossible for the offensive player to get their elbows in position set forth in article 6.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

I was going to go with a player control until you posted this. Now it would be in the realm of 'have to see'. 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. The only thing I would add to maybe think about would be calling a foul on the defender. Since there was contact, and elbow contact is usually pretty visible, my first thought in reading your posts would be to put a whistle on it one way or the other. IMO, this would continue to help keep your game clean, just like your swinging elbow violation did earlier. (Which was a great call btw)

Assuming the defense is in the offense's space, and the defender is the only player disadvantaged by the contact, it's a no-call. I'm not going to rub salt in the wound by calling a foul on a defender when all he did was hit the offensive player in the elbow with his face. If it knocks the ball out, call it, but if all it does is knock the defender down, no-call it.

[Judtech]

That makes sense and I would have to see the contact to judge but if the defensive player ends up on the ground, I will go with some salt on the wound. The reasons being that it will help clean up the game b/c it won't happen again. Also, another player may see what they think is an elbow that wasn't called and want to retaliate.