NFHS emphasis on elbow contact

[Mendy Trent]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

By extending the arms outside the frame of the body. They can be entirely stationary but in a position that is not legal if the opponent runs into them. The person with the arms extended "caused" the contact by having the arms in a position where they'd be hit.

And forget about "cause contact" for determining who a foul is on. Causing contact is not necessarily illegal. What is illegal is being in an illegal position or moving in a non-permissible direction when contact occurs, regardless of who caused it.

While I understand your point, I don't think it makes sense to forget about who caused contact. Almost all fouls are committed by causing illegal contact. Even in the scenario you cite, the extended elbow causes the contact which creates the foul.

[legend]

Originally Posted by Mendy Trent

While I understand your point, I don't think it makes sense to forget about who caused contact. Almost all fouls are committed by causing illegal contact. Even in the scenario you cite, the extended elbow causes the contact which creates the foul.

This is seen alot on Illegal screens. Player sets screen with elbows extended beyond body and clips the side of the body (or possibly the head) of defender as he attempts to avoid the screener. Can't think of any other instance where you would see this type of play.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Mendy Trent

While I understand your point, I don't think it makes sense to forget about who caused contact.

It makes sense if the stationary player doesn't have legal position.

[AKOFL]

the sit i see is chinning the ball and having your elbows our to your side. Not moving and a defender tries to reach in and hits his head on your elbow on his way in to reach for the ball. thoughts.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

the sit i see is chinning the ball and having your elbows our to your side. Not moving and a defender tries to reach in and hits his head on your elbow on his way in to reach for the ball. thoughts.

I have no foul. The ball handler doesn't have to clear a way for the defense to get to the ball. The elbows have to be somewhere and if the hand on that arm is holding the ball, I'm not going to consider it illegal when someone runs into it regardless of the position. If that arm is, instead, being used to shield the ball but not holding the ball or is extended in a very unnatural fashion, I would consider otherwise.

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I have no foul. The ball handler doesn't have to clear a way for the defense to get to the ball. The elbows have to be somewhere and if the hand on that arm is holding the ball, I'm not going to consider it illegal when someone runs into it regardless of the position. If that arm is, instead, being used to shield the ball but not holding the ball or is extended in a very unnatural fashion, I would consider otherwise.

our assigner rules that there is no situation for elbow contact above the shoulder to be ruled a common foul. is this your take on that rule?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

our assigner rules that there is no situation for elbow contact above the shoulder to be ruled a common foul. is this your take on that rule?

That's clearly contrary to the statement in the POE.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

our assigner rules that there is no situation for elbow contact above the shoulder to be ruled a common foul. is this your take on that rule?

He need to rethink his statement......

[Adam]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

He need to rethink his statement......

Yep, taking a college mentality and applying it to high school when the rules don't support it.

Maybe even taking a misunderstanding of the college rule.

[tref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

It makes sense if the stationary player doesn't have legal position.

+1

Officiating the on ball matchup & beyond is the key to knowing that the screener is illegal before contact occurs.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I have no foul. The ball handler doesn't have to clear a way for the defense to get to the ball. The elbows have to be somewhere and if the hand on that arm is holding the ball, I'm not going to consider it illegal when someone runs into it regardless of the position. If that arm is, instead, being used to shield the ball but not holding the ball or is extended in a very unnatural fashion, I would consider otherwise.

Great points, after all, who's going into who's vertical space.
You reach, I teach...

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

It makes sense if the stationary player doesn't have legal position.

I just saw this thread now, and this was my exact thought.

Setting a screen with elbows high and wide is not a legal position, so any contact on those elbows is illegal. This is similar to a defensive player who takes a stationary position with one foot on an out-of-bounds boundary line. The position is not legal, so any contact that occurs is illegal contact caused by the defender.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I just saw this thread now, and this was my exact thought.

Setting a screen with elbows high and wide is not a legal position, so any contact on those elbows is illegal. This is similar to a defensive player who takes a stationary position with one foot on an out-of-bounds boundary line. The position is not legal, so any contact that occurs is illegal contact caused by the defender.

That is not correct. The OOB player can't have LGP, that is all. The rule doesn't come anywhere near declaring that they are liable for all contact by being OOB, just that they can't be guarding. It doesn't become open season for an opponent to run into them if they see they happen to be touching OOB but are not actively guarding.

The case play that some like to cite to support your claim involves a player actively guarding the opponent...meaning the player was moving to maintain LGP but loses it by stepping OOB. It doesn't support your claim at all.

[Rob1968]

9-13-2. . . A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or against the body.

So, A1 holds the ball as described, above, and B2, guarding A2 runs into A1's elbow.

What do we have?

(I've seen this, numerous times, and even with severe contact to the head of B2.) What judgement factors do you use regarding such contact?

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

9-13-2. . . A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or against the body.

So, A1 holds the ball as described, above, and B2, guarding A2 runs into A1's elbow.

What do we have?

(I've seen this, numerous times, and even with severe contact to the head of B2.) What judgement factors do you use regarding such contact?

According to 4-40-7, a player with the ball can be considered to be a screener. I would say in this situation A1 could be charged with an illegal screen.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

9-13-2. . . A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or against the body.

So, A1 holds the ball as described, above, and B2, guarding A2 runs into A1's elbow.

What do we have?

(I've seen this, numerous times, and even with severe contact to the head of B2.) What judgement factors do you use regarding such contact?

Depends. It could be a foul on either. It could either be a screen that is called against A1 or it could be a foul on B2 for contacting the ball handler's arm. Unless it was a clear attempt to use the elbow to set a screen, I'm most likely going with the defensive foul. If you don't you'll have defenders running into the ball handler's arms all night trying to get the illegal screen call.