Contact above the shoulders

[OKREF]

I get the intent of the rule. It is extremely poorly written
I can even see the NFHS going one step further and saying that any contact above the shoulders with an elbow will be either intentional or flagrant. Even that would be easier to interpret then what we have now.

[JRutledge]

I think the reason they will not go that far is the NCAA can at least review video of those plays. In NF games we cannot review video even for a last second shot. Because if that is the penalty, many players will flop or act like they are hit in that area when they clearly are not. I have already seen players try to act like they were killed on contact that clearly was not above the shoulders or in their head. I like the way the rule stands now and even people are trying to misinterpret it as well.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think the reason they will not go that far is the NCAA can at least review video of those plays. In NF games we cannot review video even for a last second shot. Because if that is the penalty, many players will flop or act like they are hit in that area when they clearly are not. I have already seen players try to act like they were killed on contact that clearly was not above the shoulders or in their head. I like the way the rule stands now and even people are trying to misinterpret it as well.

Peace

I think if I start seeing that, I'll have to seriously consider a technical for faking.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

So ... I'm guarding Dirk Nowitski. As he goes up for a rebound, I wait until he's coming down, and jump, headbutting his elbow.

Intentional foul on him, right?

(Assuming I can jump high enough that my head is higher than Dirk's shoulders... and iffy proposition at best).

If it is Nowitski I am tossing him just because he is one of the dirtiest players in the NBA and a baby at that (following right behind Metta World Peace, which, by the way, is an oxymoron.) I would say that this would be one of your incidental contacts IMO. He was making a normal basketball move and had no intention of hitting anyone in the head with his elbow. I might call a common foul depending on how bad it looks just to cover my own butt.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by OKREF

My thought is that a stationary elbow would be when a player "chins" the ball and then pivots and the elbows aren't moving faster than the shoulders. Contact that happens with this action would either be incidental or a common foul. If a player "leads" with the elbow, and they are moving faster than the shoulders I would have either intentional or flagrant.

If anyone is even close to this player and they are pivoting with elbows out I am getting them for a violation. Players have to learn to quit using their elbows as a defensive weapon on rebounding.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think if I start seeing that, I'll have to seriously consider a technical for faking.

I did not say there was not contact or some sort of reasonable recoil, but I would not consider a T if there was contact high. The problem is that there are players that want to act like they got hit in the head instead of being hit in the chest or the arm.

Peace

[maven]

Stationary elbow: player rebounds and "chins" the ball, elbows extended but not moving or pivoting. A moving opponent contacts the elbow.

By NFHS direction, this might be incidental or a common foul. The rationale for calling a foul here is much the same as calling one on the player who has his legs wide on the floor: he's exceeded his legal spot on the floor and the vertical space above it. Rule on whether the opponent is disadvantaged by the contact.

As I understand the direction, elbows moving with the hips in a pivot and making contact above the shoulders is an INT. Elbows moving faster and making contact above the shoulders warrants a flagrant foul.

I have called several "excessive swinging" violations so far this year, and in each case the coaches seem to be aware of the new guidance and why I'm calling the violation.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by maven

Stationary elbow: player rebounds and "chins" the ball, elbows extended but not moving or pivoting. A moving opponent contacts the elbow.

By NFHS direction, this might be incidental or a common foul. The rationale for calling a foul here is much the same as calling one on the player who has his legs wide on the floor: he's exceeded his legal spot on the floor and the vertical space above it. Rule on whether the opponent is disadvantaged by the contact.

As I understand the direction, elbows moving with the hips in a pivot and making contact above the shoulders is an INT. Elbows moving faster and making contact above the shoulders warrants a flagrant foul.

I have called several "excessive swinging" violations so far this year, and in each case the coaches seem to be aware of the new guidance and why I'm calling the violation.

This is how we were told at our meeting.

[ref3808]

Would anyone be surprised if the Fed eventually determines that any elbow set above the shoulder is a violation when there is no contact and either an intentional or flagrant foul when contact occurs?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

If anyone is even close to this player and they are pivoting with elbows out I am getting them for a violation.

If the player is pivoting normally, and not swinging the elbows faster than the torso, you can't call a violation by rule.

[ref3808]

4-24-8 leaves a lot of room for an official to call a violation.

b. The aggressiveness with which the arms and elbows are swung would cause injury to another player if contacted.

There's a lot of leeway there I think especially when we're instructed to "promptly and unhesitatingly rule such action with arms and elbows a violation"

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by ref3808

4-24-8 leaves a lot of room for an official to call a violation.

b. The aggressiveness with which the arms and elbows are swung would cause injury to another player if contacted.

There's a lot of leeway there I think especially when we're instructed to "promptly and unhesitatingly rule such action with arms and elbows a violation"

Yep and I think with it being a POE, they want us calling this more often. Get the violations consistently, which is almost every time someone rebounds and pivots. If no one is around, letting it go. If anyone has a face near those elbows, Tweet! violation. FWIW, I have only called one violation this year after 7 or 8 games.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ref3808

4-24-8 leaves a lot of room for an official to call a violation.

b. The aggressiveness with which the arms and elbows are swung would cause injury to another player if contacted.

There's a lot of leeway there I think especially when we're instructed to "promptly and unhesitatingly rule such action with arms and elbows a violation"

I've always read it as "a. AND b." not "a. OR b."

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by maven

As I understand the direction, elbows moving with the hips in a pivot and making contact above the shoulders is an INT.

...that is NOT our "direction" in the State of Washington.

You just defined "stationary". The elbows are moving with the hips...they are NOT moving independently from the pivot...therefore, they are stationary even though they are moving...get it.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

...that is NOT our "direction" in the State of Washington.

You just defined "stationary". The elbows are moving with the hips...they are NOT moving independently from the pivot...therefore, they are stationary even though they are moving...get it.

Seems to me with this interpertation then there would not need to be three levels i.e. stationary, moving, excessive. There would only need to be stationary and excessive.