First elbow

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Judtech

We actually may be on the same page. I highlighted the part that was discussed ad infinitum over the summer. You use the word "Natural". Which begs the question, what is "natural"? If they secure the rebound under their chin, then naturally their elbows will go out. In the OP it sounded like the elbows were moving with the body.
It is sorta like "We have a new penalty for the same old foul." But I think more officials than not will err on the side of caution.

Actually, they wouldn't be, at least not naturally. It is a deliberate stance meant to guard access to the ball with the elbows. The "natural" position of your elbows when holding an object near you chin will be down and by the ribs. The only "natural" position that puts a players elbows near another players face (similar height) is when the ball is being held over the head.

[curlingrocks]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

My understanding is that if the elbow is moving, it's a foul. A moving elbow that contacts the neck or head of an opponent is NOT incidental.

You mention contact that would have been a foul last year, but I don't think that's correct, to be honest. I think the problem is that there was too much elbow contact that was not being called a foul in previous years. Officials took the attitude, "Well, if you don't want to get hit, then you shouldn't have had your head in there." The rule change doesn't allow us to do that anymore. JMHO.

A moving elbow doesn't necessarily have to be a foul as others have discussed already in this thread. If a player is pivoting and not swinging his/her elbows then there is contact we don't necessarily need a foul. Was an elbow moving in this situation? Yes, but just because someone is hit by an elbow that doesn't automatically mean a foul. The player is entitled to his/her position on the court. Now if I am swinging my elbows outside of my body and make contact with another player anywhere on their body, we should have a foul.

Coming straight from Debbie Williamson at summer camps and our rules meetings before the season started, what was a foul last year, is a foul this year. The only thing that has changed is the penalty associated with a foul committed by a player's moving elbow that makes contact with a person's head.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by curlingrocks

A moving elbow doesn't necessarily have to be a foul

We're just going to disagree on this, I guess. Everything I have seen and heard (pre-season video, Arbiter updates, etc) says that if the elbow is moving and makes contact above the shoulder, it's an intentional foul. If you want to pick a nit and say if it's so slight that it's hard to tell if it really connected then you can pass, I guess I'll agree. But if that elbow is moving, even in a normal basketball movement, and makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent, my understanding is that it's not incidental, period.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by curlingrocks

Now if I am swinging my elbows outside of my body and make contact with another player anywhere on their body, we should have a foul.

I think that this might be the source of your confusion. Players who are "swinging elbows" necessarily swing them outside of their vertical space. So though I agree with your statement here, I disagree with the implicit supposition that a player might swing the elbows and initiate contact that is not a foul.

A player who pivots with elbows tucked into the body might end up contacting an opponent in a way that is not a foul, but that won't be contact by the elbows. It will be with the arm, body, etc.

I think it's a pretty safe proposition that swinging elbows + contact = foul. I take it that the reliability of this proposition explains why NFHS makes swinging elbows + no contact = violation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by curlingrocks

A moving elbow doesn't necessarily have to be a foul as others have discussed already in this thread. If a player is pivoting and not swinging his/her elbows then there is contact we don't necessarily need a foul. Was an elbow moving in this situation? Yes, but just because someone is hit by an elbow that doesn't automatically mean a foul. The player is entitled to his/her position on the court. Now if I am swinging my elbows outside of my body and make contact with another player anywhere on their body, we should have a foul.

Moving elbows that make contact have absolutely ZERO to do with a player being entitle to his/her position on the court. If they're moving the elbows and hit someone, they've encroached on someone else's space. The space you're entitle to is exactly the space you currently occupy, not that plus a few inches/feet to pivot around.

[Judtech]

I agree on Curling with this one. Perhaps because we probably sat in the same classroom and didn't even know it. But the Big Dog Debbie spent a lot of time going over what type of elbow contact was a foul and what was considered a "basketball play" Further, the assignor of the major leagues around here demonstrated what WAS and WASN'T a 'foul'. To be honest some of us found it ironic that we were just told that the FOUL hasn't changed, but the PENALTY has, then we get a demonstration. However, I thought it was great on a larger sense that theoretically we are all now on the same page. One of the specific plays mentioned was the OP's play. If a rebounder secures the rebound under their chin, pivots and the elbows are the same speed as the rest of the body, we shouldn't have a foul. Now if the torso and elbows move faster then the rest of the body, we have a dealers choice of Flagrant or Intentional. There was also a play where the defender had her arms up and bent, and she collided with the offensive player. THAT was a fun one!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

If a rebounder secures the rebound under their chin, pivots and the elbows are the same speed as the rest of the body, we shouldn't have a foul.

I have never in my life ever seen a rebounder come down with his elbows locked in that position under their chin. In my experience, they usually bring them up into that position after they get the rebound. And if they do, that ain't a natural stance; the elbows are well outside the vertical plane of the rebounder's body.

We disagree.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Now if the torso and elbows move faster then the rest of the body, we have a dealers choice of Flagrant or Intentional.

Hmmm... not at all what I heard (at a different meeting, obviously).

[Judtech]

JR - What? We disagree? I am sure the board is suprised! I will say that "under the chin" should maybe read "in the neighborhood of the chin". Also, further clarification may be needed on when the 'elbows go out" Granted, MOST rebounds have a player extending their arms over their heads to grab the rebound. It is then that they secure it, which is where the rub comes. This is somthing that got rather heated when discussed, especially with the coaches. Their concern, and a valid one, is how are they supposed to teach a rebounder to protect the ball? Most coaches, around here, and at least a few schools in the midwest, teach the method I described. Eventually, the key became how fast were the elbows moving. If they are swinging them, then we F or I.
BJ - What did you hear? Enquiring minds want to know!

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Judtech

1) But the Big Dog Debbie spent a lot of time going over what type of elbow contact was a foul and what was considered a "basketball play"

2) If a rebounder secures the rebound under their chin, pivots and the elbows are the same speed as the rest of the body, we shouldn't have a foul.

1) I'm sorry, but whether it's a "basketball play" or not is irrelevant. I don't know who Debbie is, but she's just wrong on the rule. Perhaps there is a different Approved Ruling for the Women's side, but by rule, the distinction of making a basketball play has no bearing on whether it's a foul or not.

2) This is simply not true. The play you describe must be an intentional foul. Here is part of the most recent bulletin from John Adams and Art Hyland:

Memo from the National Coordinator - November 30, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
To: NCAA Men's Basketball Officials
From: John W. Adams and Art Hyland

Greetings:

Both Art Hyland and I have been inundated with questions involving what officials may and may not do as it pertains to one type of play, i.e., illegal contact above the shoulders as a result of non-excessive swinging the elbows during a "basketball play". The penalty for this type of play was changed to an intentional foul.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. A basketball play that results in elbow contact above the shoulders is an intentional foul.

3) Now if the torso and elbows move faster then the rest of the body, we have a dealers choice of Flagrant or Intentional.

This again is simply false. If the elbows swing faster than the torso, that is (by definition) excessive; and if contact results anywhere on the opponent, it is by rule a flagrant foul. Again, I defer to John Adams:

By rule, officials can only call a violation for excessively swinging the elbows. If you call this violation and go to the monitor and discover there was contact, you have no choice but to call it a flagrant foul and eject the offending player since the violation you called was for excessively swinging the elbows.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but you really need to check back with somebody who knows these rules and clarify what you heard (or thought you heard) from Debbie.

[Judtech]

SCRAP - Based on the email you posted, it looks like the Men's side is taking a more absolute position on this than on the Women's side. So while they may be "false" on the Men's side, on the Women's side we still deal with the vagaries of what constitutes a "basketball play". Probably because we have smarter people on this side!!
And "Debbie" is the Rules secretary for the Women's side. As for the assignors they would be the regional D1,D2 and D3 conference assignors who I work for.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

SCRAP - Based on the email you posted, it looks like the Men's side is taking a more absolute position on this than on the Women's side. So while they may be "false" on the Men's side, on the Women's side we still deal with the vagaries of what constitutes a "basketball play".

Then how come the pertinent elbow rules are written the exact same for NCAA Men and Women and there is nothing official anywhere that I can find that can back up your little flights of fancy.

Scrappy cites actual NCAA rules. You cite the world according to Judtech. Now whom do we believe? Gee, tough choice.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Then how come the pertinent elbow rules are written the exact same for NCAA Men and Women and there is nothing official anywhere that I can find that can back up your little flights of fancy.

Scrappy cites actual NCAA rules. You cite the world according to Judtech. Now whom do we believe? Gee, tough choice.

Unfortunately, I guess I may be living in the world of Judtech.

While I was not at the NCAA D-1 women's meetings, I was at 2 different conference meetings where they relayed what was discussed. As we can see here, there is still a lot of confusion as to how this rule is to be interpreted. But, as I understand it, there was only one change in the rule from previous years, and that is simply the elimination of a common foul involving any contact from the neck up involving an elbow.

In other words, the first choice we have to make in all contact situations involving elbows is whether the contact is incidental, even if it's above the shoulders. That has not changed, and I think that's where some of the confusion comes in. Some people are thinking the change includes calling a foul on any contact above the shoulders, and that's simply not true on either side, afaik. For example, see the above wording from Scrappy's quote, where it mentions "illegal contact" above the shoulders.

On the women's side, the language is: "Intent of the new rule: (a) Officials determine what is a foul before they make any other decisions about the contact. (b) When officials determine that the foul involved a swinging/moving (not excessively according to Rule 4-36.7) elbow that made contact ABOVE the shoulders, a minimum of an intentional personal foul must be assessed. (c) By penalizing a foul that involved a moving/swinging elbow that made contact ABOVE the shoulders with an intentional personal foul, players would be discouraged from making contact with the elbows."

We still have to make the determination if it's incidental or illegal. Then, if we determine it is a foul, and the contact happens above the shoulders, it can only be intentional or flagrant. We no longer have the option of calling a personal, common or team-control foul on that specific contact.

So, I will disagree a little with Judtech's comment about a "basketball play" in that it can be a basketball play and still be ruled an intentional, and possibly flagrant foul. But, it can be a basketball play and still be incidental contact, and therefore have no foul called, even if the contact is above the shoulders. And I don't think there's too much difference between the men and women's sides on this.

[Judtech]

M&M - Welcome to my world. It is really a fun place, especially with the little pink pills they give us everyday!!!

JR - I am sorry you were not at the same meetings as I. When something is written it is always open for interpretation. If not, what would a Supreme Court justice do with their life?

The rules that are causing some confusion are:
9-13-a2 and 9 -13 - a3

a2. A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or against the body

a3. Action of arm(s) and elbow(s) resulting from total body movement as in pivoting or movement of the ball incidental to feinting with it, releasing it or moving it to prevent a held ball or loss of control shall not be considered excessive.

So the rub becomes, if a rebounder is legal in a2 and a3 yet there is elbow contact above the shoulders does it fall under the new penalty? Or is there no foul?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

JR - I am sorry you were not at the same meetings as I. When something is written it is always open for interpretation. If not, what would a Supreme Court justice do with their life?

To paraphrase a great American....I knew Scrapper1. Judtech, you're no Scrapper1.

Old School? Hmmmmmmm..... could be.....