Elbow contact above the shoulders.
 

After all the discussion of this I finally had it happen in my game last night in my 33th game of the season. VG and H1 gets a rebound in heavy traffic in the lane. She is immediately pressured by 3 girls from the V team. Her response it to rapidly twist at the waist with her elbows extended. She wasn't pivoting her feet but her elbows were not moving faster than her torso. She made contact with a V player to the top of the shoulder, neck and jaw area. I go intentional and here it from the crowd but not one peep from the player, her teammates, or Coach.

Were you going with the intentional foul because that is what you were instructed to do or did you feel that was your only option?

Just wondering why you did not go with a PC foul instead? Just tying to understand the thinking that is all.

Peace

From what you describe, I have a player control foul. I go intentional if the elbows are not stationary or they become excessive.

Mea Confusia
 

Help me understand my confusion with the responses that it could have been a common foul. NFHS (12-13 POE) says: "2. Contact above the shoulders..., b. Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties... 1) An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul."

Did I miss or am I missing something in the original sitch or in my take on the POE?

Or am I still showing my lack of understanding on all that "stationary elbows when they are moving" tripe?

This.

And, FWIW, I would have had it as IP as well, based on the description.

This is why I interpreted as a player control and not intentional.

The elbow was moving and there was contact above the shoulders, how can you have a player control foul? The rule is not if the elbow is not excessively swinging, it may be a PC foul.

If there is a moving elbow above the shoulders it shall be at least an IF.

-Josh

Here we go again :eek:

1+

-Josh

See Your Local Listings ...
 

Strictly by the NFHS point of emphasis, intentional foul. Otherwise, when in Rome ...

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

Someone link to it and then close this, please.

My opinion obviously was this was an intentional foul. We were told at are rules meeting that even if just pivioting if the elbow strikes above the shoulder it is to be ruled an intentional. I understand other states have been told to interpert differently and I am fine with that. However I feel that it should be intentional even before this meeting. In my mind the elbows are moving. Besides unless the defense leans into it when the offense pivots they are leaving their space. My elbows stick out approximately one foot when chinning the ball. When I turn my waist 90 degrees now my elbows stick out one foot in front of me. If the defense was already in this space then the foul must be on the offense and since the elbow is moving (according to our area) then the foul must be intentional.

Cliff Notes, yes I thought it was my only choice however I agree that it should be my only choice with how the rules are written.

I agree with this and our area interpertor has told us when pivoting the elbows are in motion. If other rule different I am fine with that as long as their is consistency in their area.

If we enforced all rules verbatim from the book, we would have 3 second call on every play. A hand check on almost every play.

That's (stationary equals moving no faster than the torso) how we were instructed by CHSAA at the master clinic.

A Travestry ???
 

What? Let me get this straight. Are you implying that advantage/disadvantage has something to do with some violations?

And It's Got It's Own Power Point Slide, Now That's Important ...
 

I can see your point, but this is not only a rule, it's a 2012-13 NFHS point of emphasis.

I agree. The only problem is, there is probably 20 different intreps nationwide.

Correct. I didn't realize this was a state interpretation. In Colorado you can have a moving elbow and still call it stationary...go figure :eek:

We were told it was directly from the NFHS (powerpoint and a phone call), yet other than Washington, we seem to be alone.

It's All Relative ...
 

I blame Albert Einstein.

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."

I still claim if stationary was to include pivoting then their would only be 2 levels, Stationary and excessive. There would be no need for an elbow in movement.

I agree it won't be that many. It took me 33 games to see it.

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

Hold On For Dear Life ...
 

Stationary? It's all relative. My little corner of Connecticut is rotating, east to west, at a speed of 700 miles per hour, while we're all on a planet moving at a speed of 67,000 miles per hour around our closest star. Is you head spinning yet? Anybody need any Dramamine?

I agree to this and I am also fine with it being interperted as stationary. However if the pivioting elbow is indeed to be ruled as stationary then we do not need 3 levels in the POE: stationary, moving, and excessive. We only need two levels of stationary and excessive.

Not true.
Contact with a stationary elbow( elbow moving at the same speed as torso) may be a common foul or nothing.

If the elbow is moving faster than the torso, but not excessive, that would be intentional.

If it is excessive, it can be intentional or flagrant personal foul.

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.

This by definition is excessive.

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.

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.

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

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

When In Rome ...
 

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?".

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

Where did this come from?

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.

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.

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

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

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

Kaboom!
 

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... :confused: " means, I read this . . .
. . . and my head EXPLODED. :rolleyes:
Now I've gotta recover to do a tough game tonight.

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

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

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.

Reading Is Fundamental ...
 

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.

Fraternity Of Nerds ...
 

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

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

Sorry, but that went right over my head.

For Sale, Florida Swampland, No, Make That, Waterfront Property ...
 

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

Pick A Prize From The Top Shelf ...
 

Bingo. There was no change in the wording in the definition of intentional foul in Rule 4.