Contact above the shoulders

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Where in the world do you get that from 9-13?????

Faster than the body is the definition of moving excessively; it's not the definition of "moving".

9-13-3

Action of arm(s) and elbow(s) resulting from total body movements as in pivoting or movement of the ball incidental to feinting with it, releasing it, or moving it to prevent a held ball or loss of control shall not be considered excessive.

If I chin and pivot without moving faster then the torso, it is not excessive. It may be a player control.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by OKREF

If I chin and pivot without moving faster then the torso, it is not excessive.

Agreed. Everybody understands that definition of "excessive swinging".

It may be a player control.

Disagreed. The POE states that if the elbow is moving, but not excessively, it should be an intentional foul.

So here's exactly what you're telling me:

1) The POE explicitly states that an elbow that is moving, but not excessively, and makes contact with an opponent above the shoulders should be an intentional foul.

2) If I chin and pivot without moving faster than the torso, it's not excessive.

3) The elbow is moving, but not excessively, but should NOT be an intentional foul.

These three things can't go together.

[Scrapper1]

In any case, I think I'm probably done with this thread. We are not going to come to an agreement. I think that the Washington interpretation is not only wrong, but obviously and laughably wrong. But I don't have to officiate there and some of you guys do. As long as you call it the same way across the entire state, it'll be fine since it's not a very common play anyway.

Good conversation.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

In any case, I think I'm probably done with this thread. We are not going to come to an agreement. I think that the Washington interpretation is not only wrong, but obviously and laughably wrong. But I don't have to officiate there and some of you guys do. As long as you call it the same way across the entire state, it'll be fine since it's not a very common play anyway.

Good conversation.

There you go bashing on Washington again...I have no idea what you were told we were told, but my understanding of the elbow issue as confirmed by our assignor thru both the WIAA and the WOA is as follows...

1) Contact with a stationary elbow (as in a screener) may be incidental or common
2) Contact with a moving elbow that is not excessive (pivoting, etc.) above the shoulders may be common or Intentional...and we are encouraged to go Int.
3) Contact with a swinging elbow that is excessive is Intentional or Flagrant and we are encouraged to go Flagrant..

So what exactly is the issue with this interpretation? And please do not lump Washington in with the ridiculous idea that some are pushing here that a pivoting player's elbow is not moving...that is just dumb.

[Adam]

Rocky, read Camron's posts in this thread. Colorado has said the same as camron, stating explicitly they confirmed directly with the NFHS.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Adam

Rocky, read Camron's posts in this thread. Colorado has said the same as camron, stating explicitly they confirmed directly with the NFHS.

Do I have to??

I read through the last few pages of the thread...it is a ridiculous statement to say that a player is pivoting but his elbow is not moving. Dumb, dumb, dumb...

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Do I have to??

I read through the last few pages of the thread...it is a ridiculous statement to say that a player is pivoting but his elbow is not moving. Dumb, dumb, dumb...

Since you skipped some of this thread...I may be inclined to think you skippped some of the Washington State Rules Clinic on this very topic.

I am not saying I agree with a "pivoting elbow" being stationary(even though I have only called a PC foul on this type of play many times, so why change and make this call an automatic intentional foul?) ...but that is exactly what our on-line rules clinic stated.

...if you would like to bet me a soda or perhaps a car washing...I would be glad to oblige.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Do I have to??

I read through the last few pages of the thread...it is a ridiculous statement to say that a player is pivoting but his elbow is not moving. Dumb, dumb, dumb...

I'm not saying it isn't "moving" in the literal definition of the word but that the direction given on what should be called includes a common foul when it is part of a pivot. Reconcile that how you want whether you want to stretch the definition of moving or simply accepting that moving was a poor choice of words. Either way, you an I are calling the same thing.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

There you go bashing on Washington again...I have no idea what you were told we were told, but my understanding of the elbow issue as confirmed by our assignor thru both the WIAA and the WOA is as follows...

1) Contact with a stationary elbow (as in a screener) may be incidental or common
2) Contact with a moving elbow that is not excessive (pivoting, etc.) above the shoulders may be common or Intentional...and we are encouraged to go Int.
3) Contact with a swinging elbow that is excessive is Intentional or Flagrant and we are encouraged to go Flagrant..

So what exactly is the issue with this interpretation? And please do not lump Washington in with the ridiculous idea that some are pushing here that a pivoting player's elbow is not moving...that is just dumb.

I may have been interpreting what I was told wrong. This is a very well though out explanation and I would agree with this interpretation.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I may have been interpreting what I was told wrong. This is a very well though out explanation and I would agree with this interpretation.

...you may agree with what rockyroad is saying...but, it is not what his own state put out in an on-line rules clinic.

I have the hard copy printed out in black and white...if you would like me to quote it again. (from a previous thread)

What the heck...I went and dug it out...here is the EXACT wording from Slide 28 of 57...

"CONTACT ABOVE THE SHOULDERS

a. A player shall not swing his/her arm(s) or elbow(s) even without contacting an opponent.
b. Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties:

1. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.

An elbow is stationary when a player pivots but does not swing the elbows (when the elbow moves with the hip)"

Slide #28 from the WOA...Washington Officials Association

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

...you may agree with what rockyroad is saying...but, it is not what his own state put out in an on-one rules clinic.

I have the hard copy printed out in black and white...if you would like me to quote it again. (from a previous thread)

Going to go with what my State Association told me today.

My example: If player chins the ball and pivots and the elbows are not moving faster than the shoulders or torso, and contact happens above the shoulders.

Interpretation: Looking at rule 9-13.....a moving elbow would be faster than the body so the elbow you described would not be defined as excessive.....contact with this elbow is not automatically a foul.

So...by that interp, chin and pivot with elbows not faster than body = elbows not moving = PC or incidental.

Elbows moving faster than body = intentional or flagrant

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

...you may agree with what rockyroad is saying...but, it is not what his own state put out in an on-one rules clinic.

I have the hard copy printed out in black and white...if you would like me to quote it again. (from a previous thread)

What the heck...I went and dug it out...here is the EXACT wording from Slide 28 of 57...

"CONTACT ABOVE THE SHOULDERS

a. A player shall not swing his/her arm(s) or elbow(s) even without contacting an opponent.
b. Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties:

1. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.

An elbow is stationary when a player pivots but does not swing the elbows (when the elbow moves with the hip)"

Slide #28 from the WOA...Washington Officials Association

And that slide is exactly why our Board directed our Assignor to contact the WIAA and the WOA for clarification, and we were told exactly what I posted before...and I will even let you keep your beverage. You can contact them and ask for clarification yourself if you don't believe me...feel free. It's a free call.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

... please do not lump Washington in with the ridiculous idea that some are pushing here that a pivoting player's elbow is not moving...that is just dumb.

I just quoted the WOA slide that says the pivoting player's elbow is stationary.

If Todd S. disagrees with this statement...then maybe he should put out a directive to all associations across the state saying his group should not have worded slide #28 in this manner. (afterall, you said it was dumb)

Rocky...you said yourself that you may call a common foul on a pivot with contact above the shoulders.

Many here would disagree with you, with their interp. of the POE, and say you MUST call an int. foul when contact is above the shoulders.

I believe that is the big difference here...some say you MAY call an int. foul on a pivot, and some say you MUST call an int. foul on a pivot.

I'm with the former...as I believe you are.

...so keep your bucket of suds, I'll wash my own car.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

I just quoted the WOA slide that says the pivoting player's elbow is stationary.

If Todd S. disagrees with this statement...then maybe he should put out a directive to all associations across the state saying his group should not have worded slide #27 in this manner. (afterall, you said it was dumb)

Rocky...you said yourself that you may call a common foul on a pivot with contact above the shoulders.

Many here would disagree with you, with their interp. of the POE, and say you MUST call an int. foul when contact is above the shoulders.

I believe that is the big difference here...some say you MAY call an int. foul on a pivot, and some say you MUST call an int. foul on a pivot.

I'm with the former...as I believe you are.

...so keep your bucket of suds, I'll wash my own car.

Well if that's all this whole debate comes down to - the words "may" and "must" - then we are on the same page...the clarification we got was that a pivoting player's elbow is moving, though.

[BktBallRef]

NCHSAA instruction on this subject:

Contact with a stationary elbow - common foul
Contact with a moving elbow - intentional foul
Excessive contact with moving elbow - intentional or flagrant

Pretty simple, certainly not worthy of 7 pages of discussion.