First elbow

[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.....

[justacoach]

Found this article in the venerable washington post Dec 25 Sports section pg D3
Before anybody gets the wrong idea, my neighbor asked me to watch his stoop while he is away, so I got it for free
NCAA basketball's new high-elbow prohibition leaves little room for interpretation