Contact above the shoulders

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?