Contact above the shoulders

[jeremy341a]

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 can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

What is the definition of excessive? Isn't it when the elbow is moving faster than the torso? If so when does #2 ever take place if pivoting with the elbows extended is a stationary elbow? I seen the earlier example of pivioting on one foot or just moving at the waist and don't agree with that interpertation. I feel that when pivoting on one foot you are more apt to come out of your "space" than if you just rotate at the hips.

[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. 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.

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

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 can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

What is the definition of excessive? Isn't it when the elbow is moving faster than the torso? If so when does #2 ever take place if pivoting with the elbows extended is a stationary elbow? I seen the earlier example of pivioting on one foot or just moving at the waist and don't agree with that interpertation. I feel that when pivoting on one foot you are more apt to come out of your "space" than if you just rotate at the hips.

When the elbow is moving faster than the torso.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Looking at Rule 9-13...A moving elbow would be faster than the body

Where in the world do you get that from 9-13?????

Faster than the body is the definition of moving excessively; it's not the definition of "moving".

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Where in the world do you get that from 9-13?????

Faster than the body is the definition of moving excessively; it's not the definition of "moving".

This is what makes me believe even when pivoting the elbow should be considered to be moving. If not we would just have stationary and excessive.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Where in the world do you get that from 9-13?????

Faster than the body is the definition of moving excessively; it's not the definition of "moving".

9-13-3

Action of arm(s) and elbow(s) resulting from total body movements as in pivoting or movement of the ball incidental to feinting with it, releasing it, or moving it to prevent a held ball or loss of control shall not be considered excessive.

If I chin and pivot without moving faster then the torso, it is not excessive. It may be a player control.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Just talked to the Director of Officiating for our state, and presented this scenerio.

Interpretation: Looking at Rule 9-13...A moving elbow would be faster than the body so this elbow you have described would not be defined as excessive...contact with this elbow is not automatically a foul.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Where in the world do you get that from 9-13?????

Faster than the body is the definition of moving excessively; it's not the definition of "moving".

Our state director told me that chinning and pivoting with the elbow not faster then the body is not automatically a foul. If it is moving faster, it will be intentional or flagrant.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I have an intentional. We were specifically instructed by our rules interperter that this play is an intentional foul due to the elbow being moving.

So in some situations we are being asked to ignore the meaning of the word 'intent' in intentional foul....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

So in some situations we are being asked to ignore the meaning of the word 'intent' in intentional foul....

That's neither new nor isolated to this situation.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Adam

That's neither new nor isolated to this situation.

Please elaborate as I don't know of another situation where an intentional foul is being suggested as "automatic", where no intent exists by the offending player.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Please elaborate as I don't know of another situation where an intentional foul is being suggested as "automatic", where no intent exists by the offending player.

Automatic? No. But intent is never required when excessive force is involved.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by OKREF

If I chin and pivot without moving faster then the torso, it is not excessive.

Agreed. Everybody understands that definition of "excessive swinging".

It may be a player control.

Disagreed. The POE states that if the elbow is moving, but not excessively, it should be an intentional foul.

So here's exactly what you're telling me:

1) The POE explicitly states that an elbow that is moving, but not excessively, and makes contact with an opponent above the shoulders should be an intentional foul.

2) If I chin and pivot without moving faster than the torso, it's not excessive.

3) The elbow is moving, but not excessively, but should NOT be an intentional foul.

These three things can't go together.

[Scrapper1]

In any case, I think I'm probably done with this thread. We are not going to come to an agreement. I think that the Washington interpretation is not only wrong, but obviously and laughably wrong. But I don't have to officiate there and some of you guys do. As long as you call it the same way across the entire state, it'll be fine since it's not a very common play anyway.

Good conversation.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

In any case, I think I'm probably done with this thread. We are not going to come to an agreement. I think that the Washington interpretation is not only wrong, but obviously and laughably wrong. But I don't have to officiate there and some of you guys do. As long as you call it the same way across the entire state, it'll be fine since it's not a very common play anyway.

Good conversation.

There you go bashing on Washington again...I have no idea what you were told we were told, but my understanding of the elbow issue as confirmed by our assignor thru both the WIAA and the WOA is as follows...

1) Contact with a stationary elbow (as in a screener) may be incidental or common
2) Contact with a moving elbow that is not excessive (pivoting, etc.) above the shoulders may be common or Intentional...and we are encouraged to go Int.
3) Contact with a swinging elbow that is excessive is Intentional or Flagrant and we are encouraged to go Flagrant..

So what exactly is the issue with this interpretation? And please do not lump Washington in with the ridiculous idea that some are pushing here that a pivoting player's elbow is not moving...that is just dumb.

[Adam]

Rocky, read Camron's posts in this thread. Colorado has said the same as camron, stating explicitly they confirmed directly with the NFHS.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Adam

Rocky, read Camron's posts in this thread. Colorado has said the same as camron, stating explicitly they confirmed directly with the NFHS.

Do I have to??

I read through the last few pages of the thread...it is a ridiculous statement to say that a player is pivoting but his elbow is not moving. Dumb, dumb, dumb...