In a pivot/step where the upper body is moving in sync with the feet, perhaps with the elbows up and mostly out of the way and there happens to be contact with an elbow. I'm not going intentional on that. I might not even have a foul on that.

Twisting at the waist with the elbow out but not viciously, intentional.

Slinging them hard at someone, flagrant.

Still Confused In Connecticut ???
 

I'm calling this (above) elbow movement, but not excessive.

Doesn't the NFHS want us to go with intentional on such movement?

Such movement without contact would be legal, and not subject to the excessive swinging elbow violation, but if there's contact, it supposed to be intentional? Am I understating this correctly, because, I think, that it's the way I'm going to call it?

Set the tone for your local officials, that what I say. ;)

Not according to the powerpoint my state was given, along with telephonic confirmation, from NFHS. Not every state seems to have gotten the memo, though, or we got the wrong one. ;)

Sock It To Me ...
 

Please enlighten me.

Here is the play that bothers me:

6'-10" (A1) center gets a defensive rebound and while holding the ball up in front of his face like all good centers have been taught, pivots to throw an outlet pass to A2 breaking upcourt. B1, a 6'-00" forward is standing behind A1 in a legal guarding position. As A1 pivots to make his pass to A2 his elbow makes contact with B1's face. Yes, A1's contact with B1 is illegal contact by A1, but it is in no way an IPF just because B1 is almost a foot shorter that A1.

MTD, Sr.

Right, it's an INT foul because NFHS is trying to get these contacts out of the game.

The fact that this used to be legal is not a good reason to decline to enforce it. High hits used to be legal in football, and now they're a PF at every level and a DQ in NCAA.

Call it properly. Players will adjust. Reducing the number of players who get popped in the mouth will not ruin the game.

FED added it because NCAA added it. Now NCAAW (at least) has said that this could be a common foul.

Maven:

You are missing my point. I do not have calling an IPF or FPF for illegal contact where elbows are concerned. BUT, the play that I have described is penalizing a player for being taller than his opponent. That is sheer nonsense and a POE of that is sheer nonsense and cannot be defended by rule.

The effect of the POE is to prohibit players from holding the ball in front of or above their faces, which is just nonsense.

MTD, Sr.

Holding the ball cannot possibly be a foul on the player in control. I suppose the defender might throw his nose into the big guy's elbow, but that would be on him.

I did not miss your point: you're saying that contact that would hit a 6'6" big man in the chest and be a PC foul will hit a 5'10" guard in the nose and be INT. That makes the "severity" of the foul turn only on player height. You regard this result as nonsense.

I disagree. The rules makers have put the burden on the player who wants to "clear out" to be responsible for where his elbows go. This choice, as you know, is rooted in a desire to minimize contact to the head. If you don't want to risk hitting the guard in the face, don't clear out.

I think part of what the committee is telling everybody is that centers should be taught differently.

Pivoting to make an outlet pass is not a clear out. One has to see the entire play to determine if A1 intentionally elbowed B1 in the face or if the contact was non-intentional illegal contact.

As an interpreter and a historian of the rules, the NFHS Rules Committee is making decisions that show that a majority of the members are lacking in rules knowledge and the history of the rules.

MTD, Sr.

You may now judge it a common foul in NCAA-Men's also, even after going to the monitor.

I AGREE 100%. Despite what some have said, it is not basic basketball plays that they want to be intentional. Using the elbows as weapons, carelessly or recklessly flinging them around, is what they want out of the game, not generic contact that happens to involve elbows.

Thanks Cameron for providing the thought behind the rule...makes for better understanding:)