Elbow Swing
 

If B1 swings her elbows and makes non-incidental contact with an elbow to the head of A1, what type of foul can result?

My answer was Flagrant..based on many discussions here that above the shoulder contact with an elbow is a Flagrant foul. The answer given was it could be common, Intentional or Flagrant.

Thoughts?

I've got intentional or flagrant. Not common. New rule within the last year or so.

2012-13 Points Of Emphasis ...
 

2. Contact above the shoulders. With a continued emphasis on reducing concussions and decreasing excessive contact situations the committee determined that more guidance is needed for penalizing contact above the shoulders.

a. A player shall not swing his/her arm(s) or elbow(s) even without contacting an opponent. Excessive swinging of the elbows occurs when arms and elbows are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arms and elbows is in excess of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot. Currently it is a violation in Rule 9 Section 13 Article.

b. Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties.
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.

Yet there was more than one state that interpreted "movement" to be relative to the body. So, a normal pivot where the elbow was moving exactly with the body, in those states, was ruled to be common. If the elbow was moving faster than the body but not excessive, then it would be intentional. If excessive, flagrant.

True. Mine was one.

Correct yet again Camron and Adam...

Long discussion last year. I called it the way Camron listed it. We had disagreements within our association.

Camron:

What you say is how it should be called.

MTD, Sr.

Excessively Swinging Elbows ???
 

I was under the impression, for interpretation purposes, that the unofficial definition, for purposes of calling the swinging elbow violation, was the elbow moving (rotating) faster than the body? How can we have an elbow moving faster than the body but not excessive? Do we have two different unofficial definitions of an excessively swinging elbow, one for a violations, and another one for fouls, of various types?

Of course, what I'm about to say is unofficial:

One could be excessively swinging elbow(s) in a careless manner in order to create space or "get people off me" and catches someone above the shoulders.

Then you have someone who excessively swings their elbows with an intended destination, an opponents face/head; IOW, targeting.

Agreed. I'm not going to flagrant until I see intent or complete disregard for safety.

Confused In Connecticut ???
 

BadNewsRef: You're post is safe with me. I swear that I won't repeat this to anyone except for the few people that use the internet.

Thanks for the valiant attempt, but I'm still confused.

How can we have an elbow moving faster than the body but not excessive? For thirty-two years we've been taught (unofficially) to call the excessive swinging elbow violation (didn't this used to be a technical foul at one point?) for elbows that are swinging faster than the pivoting player, without any contact.

Is this (elbows that are swinging faster than the pivoting player) no longer the (unofficial) definition of an excessively swinging elbow? Can't we still use this definition (elbows that are swinging faster than the pivoting player) for when contact is made, and decide to go with an intentional, or flagrant, but never a common, foul?

Complete Disregard For Safety ...
 

Where's the "Like" button on this website? By the way, if I did click it, it would mean that I liked the post, not necessarily the poster. I want to be sure that I make this perfectly clear. One is judged by the company he keeps, and I've got a reputation to maintain.

<iframe class="mp4downloader_embedButtonInitialized mp4downloader_tagChecked " src="//www.youtube.com/embed/rz3ErGNKnBU" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

So as I read the rule, this should be an intentional foul.

By The Book ...
 

Nice video canuckrefguy. Thanks.

2012-13 Points Of Emphasis
b. Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties.
2. An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.

Using my old fashioned unofficial definition (elbows that are swinging faster than the pivoting player), I would not call this excessive swinging (with no contact I would not call this an excessive swinging violation), but, in the spirit, and intent (be careful swinging elbows near other player's heads), of the rule change, a few years ago, I would call this an intentional foul.

But, then again, the NFHS rule change confused me back when it came out, we still have come confusion among our local board members, and it still confuses me, so I'm open to other interpretations.

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:)

The key word in the post is HER. That's why it could be common. :D

Clear As A Bell ...
 

The NFHS is pretty clear on what type of foul they want charged here.

2012-13 Points Of Emphasis
b. Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties.
2. An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.

I know this was printed in the points of emphasis section, but is it repeated in the actual rules anywhere (specifically in the definition of each type of foul in Rule 4 or in Rule 10)? I've looked without success in locating it.

And the clarification we were given was that "movement" was in reference to the rest of the body.

If I move my body, my elbows come along for free...that is not elbow movement. If I move my elbows without the rest of the body, that is elbow movement.

Seems to me then you would never need #2, only stationary elbow and excessive elbow movement. Is this true or am I missing something?

Four different levels of elbow contact.
1. Incidental, no foul. (B1 hits A1's geographically stationary elbow with his head).
2. Common foul. (A1 steps into his throw or pivot, hitting B1 in the head. No movement of the elbows beyond what the body is doing).
3. Intentional foul. (Elbows flying, or player chinning up and pivoting in a way that puts other players at risk. I consider this foul when it's an action that could have warranted an elbow violation call).
4. Flagrant. (intentional or reckless elbows).

Deciding which is typically judgment. The NFHS wanted to find a way to codify the judgment, but only managed to increase confusion and widen the area of interpretation.

Yes. See what Adam said. His comments are just about perfect...maybe even perfect! ;)

Still Confused In Connecticut ...
 

... and they certainly did a great job of confusing officials, and a great job of widening the area of interpretation. It's a double win for the NFHS.

And, as in the backcourt/throwin/team control exception, how will rookies learn these swinging elbow fouls, of various degrees, once the Point of Emphasis disappears into the mist?

What is the difference in the pivot in #2 and #3? Is it #3 is excessive movement with the elbows moving faster than body but not directly seeking out to make contact?

While part of me can't believe we are still discussing this the other part of me is curious how my new pool will call it compared to my last pool. Find out tomorrow night!

This elbow is moving faster than his body, in my opinion it's intentional.

Agree, he was moving elbow from one side of his torso to the other and raising from low to high while also turning. Intentional Foul.

It would have been different if he had raised them before turning and didn't bring them across his body...and didn't lead with them.

Had a play last night I was trying to get some clarification on and I don't have my rule book handy. We had a rebounder come down and start swinging elbows. No contact was made with any of them. My partner calls a technical for excessive elbows. I asked if there was contact made and his reply was that it didn't matter. I let him take the call and he got a bunch of crap for it.

After the game we were discussing it and I told him I thought it there was swinging and no contact that it was a violation, and if there was contact the penalty would depend on the severity of the contact. Plus I told him I thought it was an intentional foul rather than a technical. He was certain he had called it right and that if there WERE any contact it was flagrant and auto ejection.

This thread discusses the various degrees of contact and how they should be penalized but it doesn't really discuss if no contact is made. Am I thinking right that elbows with no contact is just a violation? Bonus points if you know the rules citation. ;)

I keep my rule book in my bag just for such locker room discussions.

NFHS 9-13-1

A player shall not excessively swing his/her arms(s) or elbow(s), even without contacting an opponent.

There's nothing in Rule 10 under Player Technicals regarding elbows. If your partner thought A1 was trying to intimidate B1 by swinging his elbows he could possibly consider 10-3-6c (Baiting or taunting) but other than that the menu is limited regarding live-ball elbow contact: Nothing, common/PC/TC, IF or FF. Since there wasn't any contact the violation more than likely would have been the proper call.

Make a polite suggestion should you see him again that he either read his rule book or pay a visit to us ;)


And yeah, this has been known to help as well.

If there is excessive swinging with no contact...violation. However, just a few years ago, your partner would have been correct. It was a technical foul until sometime in the late 2000's.

Thanks for the follow up guys, yeah he was an old timer so that maybe explains it. And I normally do have my rule book in the bag and i went to grab it and I just had my manual. I took it out for reference after last season and never put it back. Thanks again.

Contact ??? Incidental, Common, Intentional, Or Flagrant ...
 

2012-13 Points Of Emphasis

2. Contact above the shoulders. With a continued emphasis on reducing concussions and decreasing excessive contact situations the committee determined that more guidance is needed for penalizing contact above the shoulders.

a. A player shall not swing his/her arm(s) or elbow(s) even without contacting an opponent. Excessive swinging of the elbows occurs when arms and elbows are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arms and elbows is in excess of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot. Currently it is a violation in Rule 9 Section 13 Article.

b. Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties.
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.

An up to date rulebook wouldn't help if there was contact. It was a Point of Emphasis a few years ago and, as we all well know, they evaporate after one year. Poor rookies. Stupid NFHS.

I am a older that an "old timer" and I can remember when the NFHS and NCAA rule that excessive swinging of the elbows without contact was just a violation and then the NFHS made it a TF and then the NFHS changed it back to the same as the NCAA rule.

MTD, Sr.

This is exactly what happened the other night...although it was a rookie HC not partners. I call an IF for contact above the shoulders and the HC naturally questions it. I explain the rule and he says he's never seen it..."show me that in the book then" I go in at half and scour the book...nothing. Me and my partners all thought we had been dreaming! I'll have to start carrying a library or old rule books with me in the future.

So is that 12-13 POE still in effect then? Is it just an extended interpretation of the intentional foul rule?

It's still in effect here. Your state might vary.