Contact above the shoulders

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

You just defined "stationary". The elbows are moving with the hips.

This is a stupid directive. Your state is not the first governing body to issue it; but it's still incredibly stupid. They are defining something with the contradiction of the word. "Stationary" = "moving". Dumb.

[Scrapper1]

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.

Hard to see how pivoting normally could be construed as overly-aggressive.

Plus, 9-13-3 tells us that elbow movement that results from total body movement is NOT to be considered excessive.

[maven]

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.

I'm guessing that somebody in WA doesn't like the new POE and is trying to gut it by interpretation. Oh well!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by maven

New POE (Contact above the shoulders)

Our local interpreter just glossed this over at our preseason interpretation (new rules) meeting. He just basically covered exactly what the NFHS Power-point stated, no more, no less, and left it at that. We did away with our December meeting a few years ago (too many complaints about too many meetings) so we'll probably have about 325 interpretations of this Point of Emphasis during the early part of the season in my little corner of the Constitution State.

With the new Point of Emphasis, can we have a player, with the ball, pivoting in such a way so that his elbows pivot the same as his hips, strike an opponent in the head with his elbow, and "only" get charged with a player control foul? I honestly don't know the answer. I'll just call something, only God knows what, it when I see it.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Our local interpreter just glossed this over at our preseason interpretation (new rules) meeting. He just basically covered exactly what the NFHS Power-point stated, no more, no less, and left it at that. We did away with our December meeting a few years ago (too many complaints about too many meetings) so we'll probably have about 325 interpretations of this Point of Emphasis during the early part of the season in my little corner of the Constitution State.

With the new Point of Emphasis, can we have a player, with the ball, pivoting in such a way so that his elbows pivot the same as his hips, strike an opponent in the head with his elbow, and "only" get charged with a player control foul? I honestly don't know the answer. I'll just call something, only God knows what, it when I see it.

I'm going with intentional for the reason I stated earlier. If we are supposed to view his elbow as stationary just bc it moves at the same speed as torso then there should not be three levels, only two and that would be stationary and excessive.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

then there should only be three levels and that would be stationary and excessive.

Must be the new math.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Must be the new math.

Yeah I butchered that one. It has been edited.

[maven]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

With the new Point of Emphasis, can we have a player, with the ball, pivoting in such a way so that his elbows pivot the same as his hips, strike an opponent in the head with his elbow, and "only" get charged with a player control foul?

According to my state, no: that would be an INT.

According to Washington state, it seems yes: that's a stationary elbow.

How two stationary non-abutting objects could possibly collide is beyond me.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by maven

How two stationary non-abutting objects could possibly collide is beyond me.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by maven

According to my state, no: that would be an INT.

According to Washington state, it seems yes: that's a stationary elbow.

How two stationary non-abutting objects could possibly collide is beyond me.

Stationary is a poor choice of words given the discussion around what they want called. As described by the NFHS, it is as Washington is doing...elbows moving no faster than the body are considered "stationary" (read as fixed) relative to the body. Moving faster than the body, intentional.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

With the new Point of Emphasis, can we have a player, with the ball, pivoting in such a way so that his elbows pivot the same as his hips, strike an opponent in the head with his elbow, and "only" get charged with a player control foul?

Originally Posted by maven

According to my state, no: that would be an INT. According to Washington state, it seems yes: that's a stationary elbow.

Rock, paper, scissors?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

As described by the NFHS, it is as Washington is doing.

I disagree. "An elbow in movement but not excessive [that makes contact with an opponent above the shoulders] should be an intentional foul".

I honestly don't understand how you can interpret to mean that a non-excessively swung elbow to the head is a PC foul or incidental.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I disagree. "An elbow in movement but not excessive [that makes contact with an opponent above the shoulders] should be an intentional foul".

I honestly don't understand how you can interpret to mean that a non-excessively swung elbow to the head is a PC foul or incidental.

Player A chins the ball, and pivots. When they pivot the elbows do not swing faster than the shoulders or torso, contact is made with defensive player above the shoulders. This can't be intentional. The movement wasn't excessive. I have a player control, and if that little guard wants to come up and get right up on the offensive player I may have incidental.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I disagree. "An elbow in movement but not excessive [that makes contact with an opponent above the shoulders] should be an intentional foul".

I honestly don't understand how you can interpret to mean that a non-excessively swung elbow to the head is a PC foul or incidental.

"Movement", as described elsewhere, means faster than the torso. It doesn't mean absolute movement. (The word movement is a poor choice of words and it isn't the first time the NFHS has poorly worded a directive and it will not be the last).

Not in "movement" relative to the torso is a common foul (or incidental).

Excessive is slinging them around vigorously....which becomes intentional or flagrant upon contact depending on the degree.

Don't get hung up on the word but look at all the descriptions of what they want called.

See slide #19 of this year's NFHS presentation....it shows what they mean by movement....the graphics used as an example show a player who's body doesn't turn but the arms do to demonstrate movement.

[Adam]

Colorado has the same direction as Washington, and it was stated explicitly that they clarified with NFHS, and used the NFHS powerpoint.