First elbow

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I had my first intentional foul for elbow contact on Saturday. D3 men's game.

Do you believe that this "Intentional Foul Elbow Rule" will filter down to the high school game?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Do you believe that this "Intentional Foul Elbow Rule" will filter down to the high school game?

I wouldn't be surprised. NFHS always errs on the side of safety.

[Back In The Saddle]

Is anybody seeing a problem with elbows at the HS level?

[Refsmitty]

Called it last year - this year just seeing the swinging - more so with girls than guys - must be the way they are taught. Have warned so far...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Is anybody seeing a problem with elbows at the HS level?

Nope.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Do you believe that this "Intentional Foul Elbow Rule" will filter down to the high school game?

Eventually.

Peace

[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

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Refsmitty

Called it last year - this year just seeing the swinging - more so with girls than guys - must be the way they are taught. Have warned so far...

I think we see it more with girls because:

1) Their hands are smaller and weaker, so they can't hold onto the ball as well.

2) They don't jump as high, so they don't secure the rebound "above" the other players.

3) Because of 1 and 2, the team not getting the rebound initially (the defense) takes a swipe at the ball.

4) We as officials do not do a good job of getting the defense off / away from the offense once the ball is secure.

5) To keep the ball, the offense puts the elbows out and pivots. The pivot sometimes turns into a swing.

[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.

[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.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Is anybody seeing a problem with elbows at the HS level?

...maybe not a "problem"...but, had a boys H.S. Varsity player last week-end throw, pivot, swing his elbow three times and in the order described.

Our 3-whistle crew missed the first "throw"...A1 had the ball in his front court down in the corner and apparently threw and elbow while he had the ball. I was Lead, and as I was handing the ball to B1 for a Throw-in, he asked me to watch A1 "throwing elbows". This was confirmed by officials, in the stands, that told us at half-time A1 did indeed "throw" an elbow.

The second "pivot" with elbow...I passed on, as C, because I did not think it was intentional or "up high", and there was no contact.

The third "swing" came as A1 was dribbling into the key and pivoted with a swing that made contact with B1's chest. I got the "player control" foul, from the Lead position. (There was no double whistle)

[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.