Contact above the shoulders
 

Just heard from our state association

CONTACT ABOVE THE SHOULDERS: Contact above the shoulders by a stationary elbow may be incidental or may be a common foul. However; contact above the shoulders with a moving elbow will be a foul. This foul may be intentional or may be an excessive flagrant foul. Again--contact above the shoulders with a moving elbow will be a foul.


Is this the same with other states direction?

Yes.

I'm still unclear what a "contact with a stationary elbow" might be.

I have heard that this is what the FED wants, even if it didn't get communicated very well during the pre-season meetings (and is different from the NCAA rule, I think).

So ... I'm guarding Dirk Nowitski. As he goes up for a rebound, I wait until he's coming down, and jump, headbutting his elbow.

Intentional foul on him, right?

(Assuming I can jump high enough that my head is higher than Dirk's shoulders... and iffy proposition at best).

"Stationary elbow" sitch?

My thought is that a stationary elbow would be when a player "chins" the ball and then pivots and the elbows aren't moving faster than the shoulders. Contact that happens with this action would either be incidental or a common foul. If a player "leads" with the elbow, and they are moving faster than the shoulders I would have either intentional or flagrant.

No. If anything it might be a foul on you if he was vertical and you came under him as he was coming back to the floor. Actually it could be nothing as this is clearly a normal action not trying to cause contact or hit someone above the shoulders.

Peace

More Choices ???
 

How about a player control foul, or a common foul?

That is addressed in our direction. If the elbow is stationary it is a common foul. If moving it is either intentional or flagrant.

Well, he's coming down, so the elbow couldn't be stationary.

Ya, I hear you...the elbow is "moving" downward. I'm wondering if "stationary" by rule means contact with the elbow is a result of the defensive player being in the wrong place at the wrong time as described in the Nowitzki rebounding scenario. I've yet to read or hear scenario that involves a "stationary" elbow. Hoping for some clarification through "case play" or hypothetical.

Best I can do

I'm good with it. Good discussion.

This is the exact direction we got from our state clinician, and we were told it came directly from the Fed (via powerpoint and a clarifying phone call.) However, that is not the direction being given by other states. Yet another poorly worded directive from the NFHS.

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. :confused:

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.

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.

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.

If it is Nowitski I am tossing him just because he is one of the dirtiest players in the NBA and a baby at that (following right behind Metta World Peace, which, by the way, is an oxymoron.):D I would say that this would be one of your incidental contacts IMO. He was making a normal basketball move and had no intention of hitting anyone in the head with his elbow. I might call a common foul depending on how bad it looks just to cover my own butt.

If anyone is even close to this player and they are pivoting with elbows out I am getting them for a violation. Players have to learn to quit using their elbows as a defensive weapon on rebounding.

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

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.

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?

If the player is pivoting normally, and not swinging the elbows faster than the torso, you can't call a violation by rule.

4-24-8 leaves a lot of room for an official to call a violation.

b. The aggressiveness with which the arms and elbows are swung would cause injury to another player if contacted.

There's a lot of leeway there I think especially when we're instructed to "promptly and unhesitatingly rule such action with arms and elbows a violation"

Yep and I think with it being a POE, they want us calling this more often. Get the violations consistently, which is almost every time someone rebounds and pivots. If no one is around, letting it go. If anyone has a face near those elbows, Tweet! violation. FWIW, I have only called one violation this year after 7 or 8 games.

I've always read it as "a. AND b." not "a. OR b."

...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.

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.

Hard to see how pivoting normally could be construed as overly-aggressive.

Plus, 9-13-3 tells us that elbow movement that results from total body movement is NOT to be considered excessive.

I'm guessing that somebody in WA doesn't like the new POE and is trying to gut it by interpretation. Oh well!

Player Control Foul Or Intentional Foul ???
 

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.

Must be the new math. ;)

Yeah I butchered that one. It has been edited. ;)

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. :cool:

Impossible ...
 

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.

Color Me Confused ...
 

Rock, paper, scissors?

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.

"Movement", as described elsewhere, means faster than the torso. It doesn't mean absolute movement. (The word movement is a poor choice of words and it isn't the first time the NFHS has poorly worded a directive and it will not be the last).

Not in "movement" relative to the torso is a common foul (or incidental).

Excessive is slinging them around vigorously....which becomes intentional or flagrant upon contact depending on the degree.

Don't get hung up on the word but look at all the descriptions of what they want called.

See slide #19 of this year's NFHS presentation....it shows what they mean by movement....the graphics used as an example show a player who's body doesn't turn but the arms do to demonstrate movement.

Colorado has the same direction as Washington, and it was stated explicitly that they clarified with NFHS, and used the NFHS powerpoint.

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.

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".

As usual...Well said.

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 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. :mad:

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.

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.

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?

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

As an aside......
 

VB game last night. B1 gets a rebound and A1 and A2 surround him on the low block and start "reaching" for the ball. My P = "TWEET" and goes to report.

As we are transitioning now, B2 is walking down court (I am C) and he begins to tell and show B1 and B3 that if he swings his elbows (like this) he could get the players off of him and create space. :eek: I advised him against that COA!

Some of em haven't gotten the msg yet!

So what do we have?

Incidental
PC
Intentional
Flagrant.


I know what I am calling.

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

That's what I have also.

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).

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.

So every coach I know, teaches players to chin the ball and pivot. We better make sure that anytime a defensive player gets up on an offensive player and just barely touches them, we better have a foul on the defense, because they are taught to chin and pivot.

Who cares what players are taught? That doesn't necessarily make it right or legal.

That is true.

I taught them this too when I coached bc I knew it would rarely be called and then it was never intentional. This didn't make it legal only effective bc it was rarely enforced.

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.

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.

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

9-13-2

A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or against the body.

If they do this and pivot and the elbows aren't moving faster than the torso, or shoulders, it is either incidental contact or a player control.

Seems to me that the way Colorado and Washington are teaching this POE makes more sense with the rule, even if it doesn't mesh with the wording, linguistically.

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 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.

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.

1. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2. An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3. A moving elbow that is excessive can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

What is the definition of excessive? Isn't it when the elbow is moving faster than the torso? If so when does #2 ever take place if pivoting with the elbows extended is a stationary elbow? I seen the earlier example of pivioting on one foot or just moving at the waist and don't agree with that interpertation. I feel that when pivoting on one foot you are more apt to come out of your "space" than if you just rotate at the hips.

When the elbow is moving faster than the torso.

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

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

This is what makes me believe even when pivoting the elbow should be considered to be moving. If not we would just have stationary and excessive.

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.

Our state director told me that chinning and pivoting with the elbow not faster then the body is not automatically a foul. If it is moving faster, it will be intentional or flagrant.

So in some situations we are being asked to ignore the meaning of the word 'intent' in intentional foul.... :confused:

That's neither new nor isolated to this situation.

Please elaborate as I don't know of another situation where an intentional foul is being suggested as "automatic", where no intent exists by the offending player.

Automatic? No. But intent is never required when excessive force is involved.

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

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.

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.

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?? :p;):p

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

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.;)

...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

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

...sounds like your state is right in line with ours...thanks for checking.

Bottom line is this is one of the worst, most poorly written rule we have had in a long time.

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.

This is what we just received on this subject from NCAAW
 

Play 1: Player A2 has her elbows extended with her hands held near her chest (Rule 4-36.6.b) and her elbows are stationary (not moving) when she sets an illegal screen. Defender B1 hits her head on A1’s stationary elbow as she gets caught on the illegal screen. A foul is charged to A2 for her illegal screen. Can this foul be reviewed to see if the elbow contact was above or below the shoulders? What is the penalty for this foul?

Ruling 1: This foul can NOT be reviewed because the elbow contact above the shoulders was not a result of a moving/swinging elbow. This is a team control foul and the penalty is no free throws with the ball being awarded to the offended team at a spot nearest to where the foul occurred. The intent of penalizing illegal elbow contact with a flagrant 1 personal foul and the review of such contact has always been for a moving/swinging elbow (Rule 4-29.2.c.6) and not for a player who runs into a stationary elbow.

Comment: We must know the intent of the rule to be able to understand why it is the rule and how to enforce it properly. The intent of assessing a flagrant 1 personal foul for illegal elbow contact above the shoulders of an opponent was to penalize players who swing their elbows and make illegal contact above the shoulders of an opponet that was not severe enough to be considered a flagrant 2 personal foul. This rule was intended to more severly penalize this type of illegal contact because a moving/swinging elbow contacting the head of an opponent posed a danger to the player being hit by it. Because of the harsher penalty, players are discouraged from swinging the elbow near an opponent’s head. This is a very different play than a player running into an elbow that is not moving. Not all fouls that involve elbow contact above the shoulders are flagrant 1 personal fouls. The stationary elbow of an illegal screener is a good example of a foul that involves contact with an elbow that is not moving and thus is a team control foul.

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.

The rules interpreter here said that a piviot is a moving elbow and to call an intentional foul. Yours said it can be a common foul. The way I see it is that it really doesn't matter which way as along as everyone calls it the same in their own area.