Nfhs question

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is vastly different from an elbow extended away from the body while screening.

...by "vastly" do you mean it is a "common foul", because of the illegal screen, as opposed to an "intentional foul" because of the "moving elbows"?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Don't know where RD is located, but what is in red must come from one of his local or state office instructors. It is NOT how my area is interpreting this.
Pivoting involves moving the arms and elbows. That creates a greater danger to an opponent. This is vastly different from an elbow extended away from the body while screening.

I think by "stationary", they mean in relative to the body/hip rotation, not actually stationary.

Allowing for a common for for normal movement that happens to result in contact with the elbow is the right thing IMO. The player, holding the arms in a normal stance and pivoting shouldn't be liable for an intentional foul just because the contact is on the elbow.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The player, holding the arms in a normal stance and pivoting shouldn't be liable for an intentional foul just because the contact is on the elbow.

I'm not so sure that that was the NFHS's intent. They seem to want to step up the anti-concussion movement. Points of Emphasis seem to lack the "power" of rule changes, or casebook plays, so mark me down as confused.

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Don't know where RD is located, but what is in red must come from one of his local or state office instructors. It is NOT how my area is interpreting this.

In our state rules interpretation meeting, we were told pretty much the same thing as RD was told. I guess the distinction they are trying to make with a pivoting/"stationary" elbow is that the player is not technically "swinging" the arm(s)/elbow(s).

[jeremy341a]

In my rules meeting in Central MO we were informed that even when pivoting if the elbow strikes above the shoulder it is an intentional foul because the elbow is moving.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

...Nevada...only been on this forum for 11+ years...guess I have kept a pretty low profile...maybe I need my state in my username...WashingtonDude

...rockyroad, can you help me with this...surely you have taken the online clinic and have seen this slide.?.

I can confirm Colorado is interpreting it the same as Washington. Our state clinic was this morning, and it sure looked like an NFHS slide.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

In our state rules interpretation meeting, we were told pretty much the same thing as RD was told. I guess the distinction they are trying to make with a pivoting/"stationary" elbow is that the player is not technically "swinging" the arm(s)/elbow(s).

Correct that it isn't swinging. But I disagree that it's stationary -- it's moving.

Too many try to have "two states" instead of "three".

But, if that's what Washington (and the NFHS) want, ....

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think by "stationary", they mean in relative to the body/hip rotation, not actually stationary.

Allowing for a common for for normal movement that happens to result in contact with the elbow is the right thing IMO. The player, holding the arms in a normal stance and pivoting shouldn't be liable for an intentional foul just because the contact is on the elbow.

I agree, Camron. That's just how it was explained to us at our state rules interpreter's meeting.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Is that what the clinic says? For contact above the shoulders? (Just asking, because I don't watch it -- we get our own.)

From the POES:

Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties:
1) contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2) An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3) A moving elbow that is excessive and be either an intentional foul or a flagrant personal foul.

Of those, only the second applies to your play. So, that leaves options A (if the contact is legal because "it's a basketball move") and C (if the contact isn't)

...I just took our State Test...if you answered A or C...you would be incorrect.

Again, here is the question:

A1 rebounds a missed try, chins the ball with elbows sticking out. A1 pivots and contacts B1 in the head with their elbow.
A. No call A1 is making a basketball move
B. Team Control foul on A1
C. Intentional foul on A1
D. Flagrant foul on A1

...also your statement of "recover <> catches" would have also been incorrect in regards to the following question...

Again, here is this question:

Player A1, in his/her frontcourt, attempts a pass to teammate A2. While the pass is in the air, B2 tips the pass towards A's backcourt. A4 recovers the tipped pass in A's backcourt. This is a backcourt violation on A; give the ball to team B for a throw in nearest the spot of the violation.

A. True
B. False

Bob...not trying to be a smart #$% just showing that even great officials such as yourself can read these questions and interps, (which are not very well written IMO) and come up with totally different answers than others.

BTW...haven't heard from Nevada lately...has he changed his mind on Washington's interp of what a "stationary elbow" is?

Apparently even States have different ideas of the way certain rules should be interpreted.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

BTW...haven't heard from Nevada lately...has he changed his mind on Washington's interp of what a "stationary elbow" is?

Apparently even States have different ideas of the way certain rules should be interpreted.

I didn't post because Bob wrote my response for me.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Correct that it isn't swinging. But I disagree that it's stationary -- it's moving.

But, if that's what Washington (and the NFHS) want, ....

So the wording is poor if the writers wanted the pivoting contact to fall within category 1 and not category 2.

From the POES:

Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties:
1) contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2) An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3) A moving elbow that is excessive and be either an intentional foul or a flagrant personal foul.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So the wording is poor if the writers wanted the pivoting contact to fall within category 1 and not category 2.

From the POES:

Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties:
1) contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2) An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3) A moving elbow that is excessive and be either an intentional foul or a flagrant personal foul.

...I guess that is why Washington "clarified" that a "pivoting elbow" (when the elbow moves with the hip) is considered a "stationary elbow".
Category 1

...an elbow "in movement" is an "elbow moving faster than the hip".(but not excessive)
Category 2

... a "moving elbow that is excessive".
Category 3