First elbow

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I had my first intentional foul for elbow contact on Saturday. D3 men's game, the play was exactly like you would expect. A5 comes down with a rebound, pivots with elbows out -- misses on the first pivot -- and connects with B5's chin on the next pivot.

Actually was pretty easy, and I guess we've talked about it so much that it didn't even require the mental double-take.

Just to play devil's advocate, but why was this not considered a 'basketball move'? If the player pivoted and the elbows went with the rest of the body, it sounds like a good play.
We have been stressed to differentiate between basketball and non basketball moves. THe direction we have been given is that if the player moves the elbows with the waist/torso, then we go with INT/FLAG. If they move with the body as part of a pivot, then we have incidental. But that is the difficult thing, IMO, about this call.
As for moving to the HS level, I will say YES, and soon. NFHS is more law suit conscious than the NCAA.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Just to play devil's advocate, but why was this not considered a 'basketball move'? If the player pivoted and the elbows went with the rest of the body, it sounds like a good play.
We have been stressed to differentiate between basketball and non basketball moves. THe direction we have been given is that if the player moves the elbows with the waist/torso, then we go with INT/FLAG. If they move with the body as part of a pivot, then we have incidental. But that is the difficult thing, IMO, about this call.
As for moving to the HS level, I will say YES, and soon. NFHS is more law suit conscious than the NCAA.

This was a D3 game and the NCAA virtually mandates that any elbow contact above the shoulder WILL get called AT LEAST an INT, possible flagrant.
At the FED level, there are provisions for calling a violation for excessive elbows without contact. With contact, I think we are still expected to use our judgement as to the call. Never saw anything from FED that makes this call an 'absolute' as in NCAA.
There is also a distinction in Fed rules as to the difference between 'swinging elbows' and a full body pivot which includes the elbows. I've seen many a defender stick his face into a pivoting ballhandler and get a bloody snoot and a well deserved foul. Not necessarily incidental in this case, could be PC, INT, incidental, or flagrant based on judgement, not automatic.
9-13 pg 57
4-24-8 pg 33

[curlingrocks]

Originally Posted by justacoach

This was a D3 game and the NCAA virtually mandates that any elbow contact above the shoulder WILL get called AT LEAST an INT, possible flagrant.
At the FED level, there are provisions for calling a violation for excessive elbows without contact. With contact, I think we are still expected to use our judgement as to the call. Never saw anything from FED that makes this call an 'absolute' as in NCAA.
There is also a distinction in Fed rules as to the difference between 'swinging elbows' and a full body pivot which includes the elbows. I've seen many a defender stick his face into a pivoting ballhandler and get a bloody snoot and a well deserved foul. Not necessarily incidental in this case, could be PC, INT, incidental, or flagrant based on judgement, not automatic.
9-13 pg 57
4-24-8 pg 33

That 1st statement is not true. What the new rule pertains to is enforcement of the penalty associated with what we, as officials, already deem a foul. What constitutes a foul has not changed. If you would have called a foul on that play last year then yes, the least you have is an intentional foul, however this new rule doesn't change what a foul is.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by justacoach

This was a D3 game and the NCAA virtually mandates that any elbow contact above the shoulder WILL get called AT LEAST an INT, possible flagrant.

Originally Posted by curlingrocks

That 1st statement is not true. What the new rule pertains to is enforcement of the penalty associated with what we, as officials, already deem a foul. What constitutes a foul has not changed. If you would have called a foul on that play last year then yes, the least you have is an intentional foul, however this new rule doesn't change what a foul is.

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.

[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!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Just to play devil's advocate, but why was this not considered a 'basketball move'? If the player pivoted and the elbows went with the rest of the body, it sounds like a good play.
We have been stressed to differentiate between basketball and non basketball moves. THe direction we have been given is that if the player moves the elbows with the waist/torso, then we go with INT/FLAG. If they move with the body as part of a pivot, then we have incidental. But that is the difficult thing, IMO, about this call.
As for moving to the HS level, I will say YES, and soon. NFHS is more law suit conscious than the NCAA.

If the elbows are up and out (basically level with the ball) and catch someone in the face, I'm going to have a foul almost every time....maybe not intentional, but a foul. The only reason they're up that is to threaten, if not make, contact. If they're not up and out but more below the ball in a more natural position, I'd be more inclined to go with incidental if they're moving with the body.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If the elbows are up and out (basically level with the ball) and catch someone in the face, I'm going to have a foul almost every time....maybe not intentional, but a foul. The only reason they're up that is to threaten, if not make, contact. If they're not up and out but more below the ball in a more natural position, I'd be more inclined to go with incidental if they're moving with the body.

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.

[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.