Contact above the shoulders

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

then there should only be three levels and that would be stationary and excessive.

Must be the new math.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Must be the new math.

Yeah I butchered that one. It has been edited.

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by maven

How two stationary non-abutting objects could possibly collide is beyond me.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by maven

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.

Stationary is a poor choice of words given the discussion around what they want called. As described by the NFHS, it is as Washington is doing...elbows moving no faster than the body are considered "stationary" (read as fixed) relative to the body. Moving faster than the body, intentional.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

As described by the NFHS, it is as Washington is doing.

I disagree. "An elbow in movement but not excessive [that makes contact with an opponent above the shoulders] should be an intentional foul".

I honestly don't understand how you can interpret to mean that a non-excessively swung elbow to the head is a PC foul or incidental.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I disagree. "An elbow in movement but not excessive [that makes contact with an opponent above the shoulders] should be an intentional foul".

I honestly don't understand how you can interpret to mean that a non-excessively swung elbow to the head is a PC foul or incidental.

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.

[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".

[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

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by OKREF

So what do we have?

IMHO, the POE dictates that this "should be an intentional foul". In my NCAA-M games, this is a Flagrant 1 every time (and we pre-game it that way before every game).

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by OKREF

So what do we have?

Incidental
PC
Intentional
Flagrant.


I know what I am calling.

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.

[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.

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.