Elbow contact above the shoulders.

OKREF

bob jenkins wrote
Elbows moving faster than the torso is by definition "excessive." 4-24-8a.

That's (one of the) the problem(s) with the FED interp / wording. Maybe "moving" = "stationary" and "excessive" in one rule <> "excessive" in another.

True. I can just go by what my state director of officials has told me. The problem is the wording of the rule.

JRutledge

If you call the foul on the defenders that are hanging and grabbing at the ball or arms of the ball handler, then you might not have to worry about whether the arms are stationary or moving excessively.

Peace

BillyMac

jeremy341a wrote
We only need two levels of stationary and excessive.

Which is true by the strict interpretation of the 2012-13 NFHS Point of Emphasis Power Point; however, many local jurisdictions have decided to enforce three levels (stationary, moving, and excessive moving).

To paraphrase the late Rodney King, "Can't we all just do it the same way?".

jdmara

bob jenkins wrote
In some areas that's not how it is interpreted. See the previous threads.

Someone link to it and then close this, please.

Thank you Bob! I haven't been religiously reading the forum this winter (as I usually do) and haven't caught that nuance. It is true that if you miss a day of the official's forum, you miss a lot.

-Josh

Welpe

JRutledge wrote
If you call the foul on the defenders that are hanging and grabbing at the ball or arms of the ball handler, then you might not have to worry about whether the arms are stationary or moving excessively.

Peace

Where did this come from?

OKREF

JRutledge wrote
If you call the foul on the defenders that are hanging and grabbing at the ball or arms of the ball handler, then you might not have to worry about whether the arms are stationary or moving excessively.

Peace

I brought this up at a rules meeting. I think if we get them off when the defense is really on the offense, it will help.

jeremy341a

JRutledge wrote
If you call the foul on the defenders that are hanging and grabbing at the ball or arms of the ball handler, then you might not have to worry about whether the arms are stationary or moving excessively.

Peace

I can't call what didnt' happen in this case. Defenders arms are straight up in the air. I do agree in general the defenders get away with too much contact and calling that would help to avoid these situations. However they really don't happen that much.

JRutledge

Welpe wrote
Where did this come from?

We were told this in NCAA meetings and videos for a couple of years now to not ignore many fouls which often causes a player to swing their elbows in the first place. It is even something that is often talked about in pre-games in the locker room on how to call these plays.

Peace

Welpe

Gotcha, you're talking in a general sense. Thought you had access to some game film that we didn't know about. 😉

JRutledge

jeremy341a wrote
I can't call what didnt' happen in this case. Defenders arms are straight up in the air. I do agree in general the defenders get away with too much contact and calling that would help to avoid these situations. However they really don't happen that much.

I did not say make up something, I said call the first foul. Often players react to players being all over them and we ignore those fouls because the player did not lose the ball or we call a held ball after a lot of contact took place. If you call the first foul you likely stop the frustration of throwing their elbows to get away and then you do not have to worry about calling an intentional foul or flagrant as a result. That is all I am saying.

Peace

Freddy

MD Longhorn wrote
Well, actually... (physics major, remember! 🙂 )

Given that the earth is actually only 24,901 miles around, the equator is moving at just over 1037.5 miles per hour.

At 41.6 degrees latitude, you've moving at 74.77980905% of that - or 775.87 mph, just around the center of the earth. So you're moving that fast, sometimes WITH the 66486 mph, sometimes against. Like the car at the end of the spinning arm of the Octupus ride.

If that's not enough, the sun is moving around the galaxy at 514495mph., with our revolutions and rotations sometimes adding, sometimes subtracting.

NOW you need dramamine.

Right when I just finished polishing off a newly perceived personal understanding of False Double Fouls, False Multiple Fouls, and what "...one of the attributes of... 😕 " means, I read this . . .
. . . and my head EXPLODED. 🙄
Now I've gotta recover to do a tough game tonight.

Camron Rust

MD Longhorn wrote
Well, actually... (physics major, remember! 🙂 )

Given that the earth is actually only 24,901 miles around, the equator is moving at just over 1037.5 miles per hour.

At 41.6 degrees latitude, you've moving at 74.77980905% of that - or 775.87 mph, just around the center of the earth. So you're moving that fast, sometimes WITH the 66486 mph, sometimes against. Like the car at the end of the spinning arm of the Octupus ride.

If that's not enough, the sun is moving around the galaxy at 514495mph., with our revolutions and rotations sometimes adding, sometimes subtracting.

NOW you need dramamine.

So that everyone can comprehend this, could you represent the numbers in furlongs/fortnights?

Camron Rust

rockyroad wrote
Elbow moving at the same speed MAY also be Intentional...if the offensive player knows they are there and pivots and puts that elbow on the face anyway, you could certainly call that Int.

That is what I have based on the OP...elbows extended and twisting rapidly. That is an intentional foul.

jeremy341a

JRutledge wrote
I did not say make up something, I said call the first foul. Often players react to players being all over them and we ignore those fouls because the player did not lose the ball or we call a held ball after a lot of contact took place. If you call the first foul you likely stop the frustration of throwing their elbows to get away and then you do not have to worry about calling an intentional foul or flagrant as a result. That is all I am saying.

Peace

I understand. We probably called fouls on the defense in this situation 7-10 times last night. We easily had over 50 fould total in the game.

BillyMac

OKREF wrote
The problem is the wording of the rule.

Disagree. I believe that the wording of the 2012-13 NFHS point of emphasis is quite clear, it's the different local interpretations of those words that's the problem. It's a problem of interpretation, and consistent enforcement, right here in my little corner of Connecticut.

BillyMac

MD Longhorn wrote
At 41.6 degrees latitude, you've moving at 74.77980905% of that - or 775.87 mph, just around the center of the earth.

Cool. Did you use your slide rule to figure out the cosine of 41.6 degrees? That would be ubercool.

egj13

I am going to bet that we see a rewording or clarification in next year's rule book.

I had a play like the OP on Saturday night. Kid rebounds, swings the ball from one side to the other but catches the defender in the chin so I whistle an intentional foul. Neither coach had an issue with it...I think it has been explained pretty well in our part of Montana. If an elbow hits a defender above the shoulders it is at a minimum an intentional.

JRutledge

egj13 wrote
I am going to bet that we see a rewording or clarification in next year's rule book.

I had a play like the OP on Saturday night. Kid rebounds, swings the ball from one side to the other but catches the defender in the chin so I whistle an intentional foul. Neither coach had an issue with it...I think it has been explained pretty well in our part of Montana. If an elbow hits a defender above the shoulders it is at a minimum an intentional.

Part of the problem this is really not a rules change, it is a POE interpretation. And when they tend to make interpretation positions without changing the actual rule, these issues keep coming up. At least that is the way I see it.

Peace

just another ref

just another ref wrote
POE: Contact with an elbow in movement should be an intentional foul.

State: An elbow moving with the torso is considered stationary.

Translation: We don't want that many intentional fouls called (me: it really isn't that many) and this sounds better than "Ignore this POE."

Adam wrote
Then you aren't really paying attention to what we're writing.

Sorry, but that went right over my head.

BillyMac

egj13 wrote
I am going to bet that we see a rewording or clarification in next year's rule book.

Yeah? Sure. Right after they clean up the team control throwin backcourt exception rule.

« Previous Page