Contact above the shoulders

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

"Movement", as described elsewhere, means faster than the torso.

Then why include the phrase "but not excessive"?? That makes no sense. If your explanation is correct, the POE reads "An elbow in non-excessive movement, but not excessive, should be an intentional foul". That makes no sense at all.

I will go back and review the slides, as you suggest. But reading it the way you (and Washington State) are suggesting is not plausible to me.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

You just said contact was made above the shoulders, but the movement wasn't excessive. The POE explicitly states that the situation you just described -- and using the exact words that you just used -- "should be an intentional foul".

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

"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.

As usual...Well said.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Then why include the phrase "but not excessive"?? That makes no sense. If your explanation is correct, the POE reads "An elbow in non-excessive movement, but not excessive, should be an intentional foul". That makes no sense at all.

I will go back and review the slides, as you suggest. But reading it the way you (and Washington State) are suggesting is not plausible to me.

Sure it is....

Lets try this another way.

Moving the body with the elbows attached is not "elbow" movement....it is body movement and will be a common foul if a foul is warranted at all (even if the point of contact involves the elbow).

Moving the elbows alone or on top of the body movement is elbow movement. Such movement would be at least an intentional foul and, if considered excessive movement, could be a flagrant foul.

[rockyroad]

I have not read this whole thread, just caught scrapper's reference to Washington State on this 4th page...so I will jump in with what we were told after our assignor got clarification from the WIAA and the WOA...

If the elbow is moving at the same speed as shoulders and hips (player is pivoting) and contact is made above the shoulders, then it may be a common or an Int. foul.

If the elbows are moving faster (being thrown) and contact is above the shoulders, it should be Int at minimum and possibly flagrant.

Not sure if this clears anything up, but it doesn't seem that difficult to me.

[maven]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I have not read this whole thread, just caught scrapper's reference to Washington State on this 4th page...so I will jump in with what we were told after our assignor got clarification from the WIAA and the WOA...

If the elbow is moving at the same speed as shoulders and hips (player is pivoting) and contact is made above the shoulders, then it may be a common or an Int. foul.

If the elbows are moving faster (being thrown) and contact is above the shoulders, it should be Int at minimum and possibly flagrant.

Not sure if this clears anything up, but it doesn't seem that difficult to me.

As I read it, this is a THIRD interpretation.

The original "stationary elbow" interp held that contact would be either incidental or a common foul.

I look forward to NFHS running next year's revisions past a native speaker of English.

[rockyroad]

A stationary elbow would be a screener sticking his elbows out and the defender running into the elbow...no way a pivoting player's elbow should be considered stationary.

[maven]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

A stationary elbow would be a screener sticking his elbows out and the defender running into the elbow...no way a pivoting player's elbow should be considered stationary.

That's exactly my view. And that could be a foul or incidental: it could be a foul if the contact occurred outside the player's frame, just as we call a block on the player who sticks his leg out. It would be incidental if the contact was so slight as not to disadvantage the defender. This interp makes better sense of the rule, too.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sure it is....

Lets try this another way.

Moving the body with the elbows attached is not "elbow" movement....it is body movement and will be a common foul if a foul is warranted at all (even if the point of contact involves the elbow).

Moving the elbows alone or on top of the body movement is elbow movement. Such movement would be at least an intentional foul and, if considered excessive movement, could be a flagrant foul.

I completely understand your position, and I understand that you're not the only person who understands it this way. But you're doing definitional gymnastics that simply aren't appropriate. Just read the POE and apply our existing definitions about what is excessive.

An elbow that is moving is, well, MOVING. . . even if it's not moving faster than the torso. An elbow that is moving but not faster than the torso and makes contact above the shoulders of an opponent "should be an intentional foul".

I agree that it's not the clearest piece of writing ever to grace a basketball rulebook. They should have used the term "swinging elbow" (and then distinguished between excessive and non-excessive swinging) instead of an "elbow in movement". But it's certainly clear enough to see that it doesn't mean what you (and the State of Washington) are trying to state in this thread.

[jeremy341a]

If a player pivioting has a stationary elbow then can someone describe an elbow that is moving and not excessive? If moving with the body speed is stationary then anything above that by definition must be excessive. If that is the case where does elbow in movement come in?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

If a player pivoting has a stationary elbow then can someone describe an elbow that is moving and not excessive?

Awesome point, Jeremy. I tried to say this earlier when I posted:

Then why include the phrase "but not excessive"?? That makes no sense. If your explanation is correct, the POE reads "An elbow in non-excessive movement, but not excessive, should be an intentional foul". That makes no sense at all.

[grunewar]

VB game last night. B1 gets a rebound and A1 and A2 surround him on the low block and start "reaching" for the ball. My P = "TWEET" and goes to report.

As we are transitioning now, B2 is walking down court (I am C) and he begins to tell and show B1 and B3 that if he swings his elbows (like this) he could get the players off of him and create space. I advised him against that COA!

Some of em haven't gotten the msg yet!

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

So what do we have?

Incidental
PC
Intentional
Flagrant.


I know what I am calling.

[JRutledge]

Probably just a PC foul. Again the result of the contact would help, but unless something is not excessive it is just going to be a PC foul from me.

Peace

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Probably just a PC foul. Again the result of the contact would help, but unless something is not excessive it is just going to be a PC foul from me.

Peace

That's what I have also.