I just quoted the WOA slide that says the pivoting player's elbow is stationary.

If Todd S. disagrees with this statement...then maybe he should put out a directive to all associations across the state saying his group should not have worded slide #28 in this manner. (afterall, you said it was dumb):p

Rocky...you said yourself that you may call a common foul on a pivot with contact above the shoulders.

Many here would disagree with you, with their interp. of the POE, and say you MUST call an int. foul when contact is above the shoulders.

I believe that is the big difference here...some say you MAY call an int. foul on a pivot, and some say you MUST call an int. foul on a pivot.

I'm with the former...as I believe you are.

...so keep your bucket of suds, I'll wash my own car.;)

Well if that's all this whole debate comes down to - the words "may" and "must" - then we are on the same page...the clarification we got was that a pivoting player's elbow is moving, though.

NCHSAA instruction on this subject:

Contact with a stationary elbow - common foul
Contact with a moving elbow - intentional foul
Excessive contact with moving elbow - intentional or flagrant

Pretty simple, certainly not worthy of 7 pages of discussion. :)

The discussion was over the definition of "stationary" in this context, and the different interpretations from different states.

If you pivot, your elbow moves, along with everything else. Your are responsible for where it goes, and if it hits somebody in the head the committee wants it to be at least an intentional foul.

Now everybody do what you think is best.

...and around and around we go...
 

...after reading some of the comments in this thread...I would say you are going against the thinking of some very well versed officials...and me...;)

i.e.

Camron, Adam, rockyroad, OKREEF to name a few.

Again, IMO and WA state, a pivot does not HAVE to be an intentional foul.

As far as I'm concerned, by rule, nowhere does it have to be an intentional foul.

This is a point of emphasis:

"An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul."

as opposed to a rule. I don't think most of us would have come to this blanket conclusion by reading 10-6.

Judge each play on its own merit, or lack thereof, and this problem should take care of itself.

Not surprisingly, the only flagrant personal foul I have ever called in a varsity game was for an elbow to the head.

Yeah...and? Still not worthy of 7 or 8 pages of discussion IMHO. :)

Stationary means what it always means. If state associations interpret it differently, there's not much you can do but follow their instruction.

Tony...how have you called the play where the "pivoting" player with the ball, when his elbows are not moving faster than the torso, makes contact with the defender above the shoulders?

Have you ever called just a PC foul in this situation as opposed to an automatic intentional foul? ...that is if you think a pivoting player's elbows are "moving"...then you must call an intentional foul as you earlier stated, correct?

We are focusing so much on the movement part, let us not forget the above the shoulders part. It's an elbow to the head. It really doesn't happen that often.

Pro Choice ...
 

Agree, however, in the olden days we had a choice of a player control foul (usually), or an intentional foul (rarely). Now it appears, in some jurisdictions, that we have no choice.