Contact above the shoulders

[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.

[jeremy341a]

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.

Seems to me with this interpertation then there would not need to be three levels i.e. stationary, moving, excessive. There would only need to be stationary and excessive.

[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.

[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.

[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.