Excessive swinging of elbows
 

This past weekend, I was doing an 8th grade boys game. A5 gathers a rebound and proceeds to swing an elbow behind him. There's no one near him at the time, but i couldn't judge his intentions and I didn't want something like this to happen again in the game so I blew the whistle and called a violation per 9-13-1. Although he only did it once, I thought that was excessive.

I called the violation and the scorer called me over to ask what I called. They thought it was a foul. I explained it was a violation just like traveling, illegal dribble, etc. The coach tells the scorer that I made up the call. I wasn't paying that comment any attention.

After the game, my partner says that maybe I should just stop the game and give a warning next time instead of calling the violation. I try to explain to him that that was the warning - to everyone - that I wasn't going to allow someone to swing an elbow like that. Was it the right move to call the violation?

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.

If the player makes contact with the elbow during his pivot, should I call the foul? I wasn't sure so I didn't. Thinking about it after the game, I thought that I remembered someone telling me that it was a POE at some time in the past to call that type of contact a foul.

1. good call.
2. Your partner ought to grow a pair.
3. coach gets a T for accusing me of making calls up.
4. If the offensive player stepped into the defender, then it's a foul. If he merely pivoted within his own space, it's not. If his elbow is truly extended as he pivots, then it's likely a foul; players are not allowed to extend their space with their arms. Normally, this contact should be a foul, but I've seen plays where the defender was hovering over top of the offensive player and got clocked as the player with the ball pivoted. No-call in that case.

As I remember it, there were about three defenders around the ball. The two in front were trying to strip the ball away, so the player pivoted away. The third defender was right behind him also trying to get the ball. I don't think that the player was fully aware of where the third defender was, but I thought that the defender was in the offensive players space.

A Thread About Swingers, Can't Wait For Mark Padgett To Post ...
 

Regarding the table thinking this was a foul. In my thirty years, excessive swinging went from being a violation, to being a technical foul, to again being a violation. That's what may have led to the confusion. I bet that the guys at the table were a bunch of old farts, like me.

I had the same thing happen to me this year: called the violation, administered the backcourt end-line throw-in, and heard the buzzer.

Like Hornets, I explained the violation to the table. The coaching staff got it, and the player understood, but some fans didn't. My teenage son had video camera in hand, and you could hear reaction as if I were nuts.

"That's called a FOUL, sir!" one cried.

"No, it's not!" My kid fired back. "Learn the rules!"

I asked the violator if he understood the call. He clearly did. I should have asked him to explain to policy-challenged.

The exact reason this was changed from a technical foul to a violation was to get more officials to call it. In my opinion there's no reason to warn here. The first time this is called, you will surely see the excessive elbows cease.

Hornets:

Based upon your description this is a player control foul by the post player.

MTD, Sr.

I personally like the fact they moved this back to a violation. As the case in the OP, the one whistle will put a stop to it very quickly and IMO the "punishmenet fits the crime'. To me the rule was up there with the "T" for the flop/charge.;)

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)

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.....:rolleyes:

They were older people. It was an AAU game and parents were working the table, so I'm sure their rule knowledge was limited. Also, they had the HC of the violating team telling them that I was making up calls, so that may have led to more confusion. When I called the violation, I went up with the open hand, gave the excessive elbow mechanic (and said it verbally), and notified my partner of the throw-in spot and direction. I guess they don't see it called much, so they weren't sure what was going on.

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.

Since I am working a camp this weekend I actually have my rule book handy, granted it is the NCAA book so the NFHS might be different:D
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

EDIT: And since I wanted to get ice cream I took the 07-08 NFHS rule book I was using to support a table out and found that there is a similar pharse used in 4.24.6 last sentence. Page 35 in my hymnal

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

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.

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.

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.

4-24-6

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

:confused:

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

Here's a little more information to clarify

It was a "long" defensive rebound just outside the paint just above the second free throw space. Naturally, the guards float to the ball to go for the strip. His primary defender (whom he beat to the ball) is there plus one other guard - both going for the ball. Another defender approaches from behind ( I guess he though he could sneak up and still the ball). He leans in takes a couple of swipes, but I don't think the post player knows he's there yet on account that there are 4 arms reaching for the ball from the front. He pivots away from these two, and as he does, he makes contact with the third defender.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

Sounds like a no-call unless it knocked the ball out.

I'm not going to call a foul on B1 just because B2 might retaliate otherwise. Frankly, I'm no-calling it because it's not a foul by rule. B1's actions didn't prevent A1 from participating in normal offensive movements, so the contact is incidental by rule.

Getting an elbow in the nose prevents it just as much, if not more so, than a foul call. I'm not making a call just because it might somehow lessen the grief I might take for making the correct no-call.

I really think this is a HTBT, but I'm wondering how an extended elbow can hit a jaw, but the jaw is in A1's space. If the elbow is extended, then that, by rule, is outside the player's space.

Not necessarily. Chinning the ball doesn't mean the elbows are outside the player's space. That's the impression I got from his post, even though he said "extended." Having the player behind him leaning in and trying to swipe a ball that's in front, it's going to have to be pretty obvious that the elbow was extended and swinging excessively.

We agree. I was working from the angle that B1's actions DID prevent A1 from making a normal offensive move.
With the final post, we also agree. Again, being a HTBT, I would think this sounds like a now call as well unless the ball comes loose.

Agree....while it is not excessivly swinging, a player may not legally move into another player who has obtained LGP. Just becasue the piviot is legal doesn't absolve the player form committing a foul in the process. If it were any different, post players could pivot their way through their defenders for easy layups/dunks.

If it hasn't happened yet, there's NO need to clean up the game. You can get yourself into a heaped-high steaming pile of doo-doo by trying to send a message when there's absolutely no need to do so.

Just make the call based on it's own merits. As Snaqs said, you might feel that the best call for that particular play might be a no-call for incidental contact. It might also be a case where the pivot is borderline legal/illegal and you really do want to send a message. But the main idea imo is to judge whether the original pivot was legally made or not. That's the whole crux of the call. If you do decide that the pivot was legally made, it's fairly easy to judge any ensuing contact. The same holds true if you decide that it was an illegal pivot.

What you don't want to ever do is pre-judge the legality of the pivot.

Over-thinking these type of calls can get you into trouble.

JMO.

What rule?:confused:

I can't think of any rule that states that a player with the ball can't extend his elbow(s) in a normal fashion while making a legal pivot. The decision that you have to make if contact occurs is whether the defender actually did have a legal, vertical stance or not. The defender's jaw may or may not be in A'1 space, but you have to determine that on each and every play. You can't make up a one-size fits-all dictum like an extended elbow is always illegal to cover these types of call. You don't have the rules-backing to do something like that/

You have to determine first and foremost if the pivot by A1 was legal or not. The ensuing right/proper call can't be made without that determination.

Of course, it's a HTBT call though. Every single one of these elbow-swinging situations is. You have to treat each and every one as a unique play imo and judge that play solely on it's merits. And like any other judgment call, you might get one wrong some time.

The rule is 4-24-6:
The extension of the elbows when the hands are on the hips or when the hands are held near the chest or when the arms are held more or less horizontally are examples of the illegal positions used.

The rules state that extending the elbows is not legal, even if you think it is "normal."




I agree that there is not a one-size-fits-all way to call these. But for you to say that there is "nowayinhell" that this is a PC foul is wrong. Just because a pivot is legal, doesn't mean that the offensive player didn't cause illegal contact with his arms/elbows.

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.

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.

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.

Look above your post. ;)

Yeah, timing is awesome...:)

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

From the OP:

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

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.

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.

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!:)

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.

JR get a grip!!
 

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.

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.

Are you saying this because you feel that it is illegal to extend one's elbow/s and make contact when ones hands are held near ones chest and/or their arms are held apporximately horizontal to the playing court? Where would you get an idea like that?:confused:

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

The elbow swing does not have to be excessive,

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.
There are plenty of pivots that are wide- There are plenty of pivots that extend into other players

Rarely is there going to be contact with an elbow in my game and not have a foul. This can never be incidental, It has to be called.

Kelvin, if you go back and read some of my posts, you'll see that is exactly what I have been saying all along. The only difference is the terminology.

I said that during a non-excessive elbow swing:
1) If the elbow extends outside the offensive space, then the player with the ball has not made a legal pivot if contact occurs. PC foul.
2) If the defender is inside the offensive space, the player with the ball has made a legal pivot if contact occurs. Defensive foul or no call for incidental contact---> judgment call.

That is basically what you just stated above. It is also basically the response that I received back after asking the same question of several NCAA officials.

I can't see where we disagree.

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.

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.

I agree. You have no idea. :D

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.

Who do you think you are, Padgett? :p

MTD, Sr.

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