Contact above the shoulders

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Then why include the phrase "but not excessive"?? That makes no sense. If your explanation is correct, the POE reads "An elbow in non-excessive movement, but not excessive, should be an intentional foul". That makes no sense at all.

I will go back and review the slides, as you suggest. But reading it the way you (and Washington State) are suggesting is not plausible to me.

Sure it is....

Lets try this another way.

Moving the body with the elbows attached is not "elbow" movement....it is body movement and will be a common foul if a foul is warranted at all (even if the point of contact involves the elbow).

Moving the elbows alone or on top of the body movement is elbow movement. Such movement would be at least an intentional foul and, if considered excessive movement, could be a flagrant foul.

[rockyroad]

I have not read this whole thread, just caught scrapper's reference to Washington State on this 4th page...so I will jump in with what we were told after our assignor got clarification from the WIAA and the WOA...

If the elbow is moving at the same speed as shoulders and hips (player is pivoting) and contact is made above the shoulders, then it may be a common or an Int. foul.

If the elbows are moving faster (being thrown) and contact is above the shoulders, it should be Int at minimum and possibly flagrant.

Not sure if this clears anything up, but it doesn't seem that difficult to me.

[maven]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I have not read this whole thread, just caught scrapper's reference to Washington State on this 4th page...so I will jump in with what we were told after our assignor got clarification from the WIAA and the WOA...

If the elbow is moving at the same speed as shoulders and hips (player is pivoting) and contact is made above the shoulders, then it may be a common or an Int. foul.

If the elbows are moving faster (being thrown) and contact is above the shoulders, it should be Int at minimum and possibly flagrant.

Not sure if this clears anything up, but it doesn't seem that difficult to me.

As I read it, this is a THIRD interpretation.

The original "stationary elbow" interp held that contact would be either incidental or a common foul.

I look forward to NFHS running next year's revisions past a native speaker of English.

[rockyroad]

A stationary elbow would be a screener sticking his elbows out and the defender running into the elbow...no way a pivoting player's elbow should be considered stationary.

[maven]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

A stationary elbow would be a screener sticking his elbows out and the defender running into the elbow...no way a pivoting player's elbow should be considered stationary.

That's exactly my view. And that could be a foul or incidental: it could be a foul if the contact occurred outside the player's frame, just as we call a block on the player who sticks his leg out. It would be incidental if the contact was so slight as not to disadvantage the defender. This interp makes better sense of the rule, too.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sure it is....

Lets try this another way.

Moving the body with the elbows attached is not "elbow" movement....it is body movement and will be a common foul if a foul is warranted at all (even if the point of contact involves the elbow).

Moving the elbows alone or on top of the body movement is elbow movement. Such movement would be at least an intentional foul and, if considered excessive movement, could be a flagrant foul.

I completely understand your position, and I understand that you're not the only person who understands it this way. But you're doing definitional gymnastics that simply aren't appropriate. Just read the POE and apply our existing definitions about what is excessive.

An elbow that is moving is, well, MOVING. . . even if it's not moving faster than the torso. An elbow that is moving but not faster than the torso and makes contact above the shoulders of an opponent "should be an intentional foul".

I agree that it's not the clearest piece of writing ever to grace a basketball rulebook. They should have used the term "swinging elbow" (and then distinguished between excessive and non-excessive swinging) instead of an "elbow in movement". But it's certainly clear enough to see that it doesn't mean what you (and the State of Washington) are trying to state in this thread.

[jeremy341a]

If a player pivioting has a stationary elbow then can someone describe an elbow that is moving and not excessive? If moving with the body speed is stationary then anything above that by definition must be excessive. If that is the case where does elbow in movement come in?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

If a player pivoting has a stationary elbow then can someone describe an elbow that is moving and not excessive?

Awesome point, Jeremy. I tried to say this earlier when I posted:

Then why include the phrase "but not excessive"?? That makes no sense. If your explanation is correct, the POE reads "An elbow in non-excessive movement, but not excessive, should be an intentional foul". That makes no sense at all.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

If a player pivioting has a stationary elbow then can someone describe an elbow that is moving and not excessive? If moving with the body speed is stationary then anything above that by definition must be excessive. If that is the case where does elbow in movement come in?

No, it isn't. A player can rotate at the waist and above without pivoting the whole body....that would be a moving elbow. Depending on the speed/force that they rotate, it might be excessive or not. You wouldn't need the adjective excessive if all movement of the elbows were considered the same so there must be some level of elbow movement that isn't considered excessive.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A player can rotate at the waist and above without pivoting the whole body....that would be a moving elbow.

So, it seems like you're differentiating between pivoting on a pivot foot and rotating at the waist. And based on that differentiation, it sounds like you're saying that a player who pivots on a pivot foot does not have a moving elbow; in which case, if that elbow makes contact above the shoulders of an opponent, you could have nothing or a common foul.

Is that right so far?

If so, it then also sounds like you're saying if that same player rotates at the waist (instead of pivoting on the pivot foot), without the elbows moving faster than the torso, and the elbow makes contact above the shoulders of an opponent, that's an intentional foul.

Is that right?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

So, it seems like you're differentiating between pivoting on a pivot foot and rotating at the waist. And based on that differentiation, it sounds like you're saying that a player who pivots on a pivot foot does not have a moving elbow; in which case, if that elbow makes contact above the shoulders of an opponent, you could have nothing or a common foul.

Is that right so far?

If so, it then also sounds like you're saying if that same player rotates at the waist (instead of pivoting on the pivot foot), without the elbows moving faster than the torso, and the elbow makes contact above the shoulders of an opponent, that's an intentional foul.

Is that right?

This is how I see it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

So, it seems like you're differentiating between pivoting on a pivot foot and rotating at the waist. And based on that differentiation, it sounds like you're saying that a player who pivots on a pivot foot does not have a moving elbow; in which case, if that elbow makes contact above the shoulders of an opponent, you could have nothing or a common foul.

Is that right so far?

Most likley... although I do accept that the possibility of an intentional foul does still exist.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

If so, it then also sounds like you're saying if that same player rotates at the waist (instead of pivoting on the pivot foot), without the elbows moving faster than the torso, and the elbow makes contact above the shoulders of an opponent, that's an intentional foul.

Is that right?

Not quite...I challenge you to rotate at the waist without the elbows moving at least a little faster than the torso....but the difference is leading with the elbows vs. twisting the body. Lead with the elbow....intentional. Lead with the elbow viciously, flagrant.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by camron rust

most likley... Although i do accept that the possibility of an intentional foul does still exist.



Not quite...i challenge you to rotate at the waist without the elbows moving at least a little faster than the torso....but the difference is leading with the elbows vs. Twisting the body. Lead with the elbow....intentional. Lead with the elbow viciously, flagrant.

+2

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Most likley... although I do accept that the possibility of an intentional foul does still exist.

IMHO, that is a LUDICROUS distinction. You are going to penalize the same contact differently because of the method used to pivot???? Pivot on your foot and hit a guy above the shoulders, it's (maybe) a PC foul. Pivot at the waist at same speed and hit a guy above the shoulders, it's intentional. That makes absolutely zero sense to me.

I challenge you to rotate at the waist without the elbows moving at least a little faster than the torso.

I just did it. Easily. In fact, I did it twice, because it was so easy that I thought that maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention to my elbows. The only thing that was marginally difficult was getting the elbows to stop at the same time as my torso. Because of the momentum generated while twisting, my elbows continued to move slightly after I stopped twisting my torso. But more than likely, any contact will occur before the torso is done twisting, so that doesn't come into play.