Excessive swinging of elbows

[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.

[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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Thank you Camron. 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.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

I agree. You have no idea.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I agree. You have no idea.

Who do you think you are, Padgett?

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Really?!? I've never run across that problem.