Contact above the shoulders

[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.

[Adam]

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.

This is the exact direction we got from our state clinician, and we were told it came directly from the Fed (via powerpoint and a clarifying phone call.) However, that is not the direction being given by other states. Yet another poorly worded directive from the NFHS.

[packersowner]

Our assignor told us that its imperative to watch the trunk rotation vs. the pivot foot rotation. If you rotate the trunk and you have contact, it's a foul. If you have a pivot foot rotation, that its legal and in some cases might be a foul on the defense based on how they are guarding.

No matter what I struggle with this one - I have seen it 2 or 3 times and probably gotten it wrong 2-3 times. I am now focusing on getting the first foul that generally occurs which is why the offense begins to swing their elbows to begin with. Then trying to focus on whether we have violation.

I get the intent of why its a POE this year - but it really has put a lot of doubt in my mind.

Thanks for the discussion on this.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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."

[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.