Can an elbow to the head be a PC?
 

I was asked whether an elbow to the head can be a mere PC foul, as opposed to intentional (NFHS). I'm wracking my brain on this one.

The only way I would think that would be a PC if the elbow was stationary and high, but the shooter moves his entire body into the defender, and the elbow contacts the head without actually swinging the elbow.

Thoughts?

Depends on the state interpretation of the NFHS POE. Some follow your above logic; others say any elbow-to-head contact that is a foul must be intentional.

The way it has been interpreted to me in the NFHS rule set is elbow contact above shoulders=intentional foul. Only other option is flagrant, if it's warranted. I've seen the play on video that the reporter in that post was talking about. I believe by rule it had to be judged intentional, and was.

...that...at least here in WA. State...home of the 2014 Super Bowl Champs!;)

As communicated to us earlier this season from IAABO ...

Contact Above The Shoulders
For the 2012-13 season the NFHS Rules Committee issued a Point of Emphasis (POE) on contact above the shoulders. The POE defined illegal contact from a moving elbow where such contact was above the shoulders as being either an intentional foul or a flagrant one. This guidance regarding these play situations was provided in connection with the continuing emphasis on reducing concussions and decreasing excessive contact situations. It also helped to bring the results of such plays in high school games more in line with what is defined at the NCAA and pro levels.
IAABO, in its role supporting the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee, has provided a question in this area on the refresher exam. This question hopes to refresh the official’s understanding and to promote discussion in this area for the coming season.
Question #13 read, “A1, while being closely guarded, swings his/her elbows not excessively and contacts B-1 above the shoulders. The official rules an intentional personal foul. Is the official correct?”
This question should be answered as “Yes.”
Last season the Point of Emphasis (POE) distinguished between two varieties of such contact. When illegal contact above the shoulders is not the result of elbow and/or arm movement that is excessive, then the contact is to be ruled as intentional. This means that this illegal contact should have resulted from moves that are consistent with the game of basketball. An example of this could be a play situation involving an outlet pass after a rebound. If a player had chinned the ball and then turned to make an outlet pass with his/her elbow leading the way, this could result in contact with an opponent. Previously such contact may have resulted in a player control foul being ruled. With the guidance provided by Rules Committee, if such contact is above the shoulders, the result should be an intentional foul being ruled.
In situations where the illegal contact is the result of excessively swinging arms and/or elbows, the ruling should normally be a flagrant foul unless the contact was judged to be slight. Examples of this include play situations where a player is trapped by more than one opponent and the player attempts to create space by rapidly swinging his/her arms and elbows. When such actions result in contact with an opponent above the shoulders, this contact should result in a flagrant foul being ruled. Another example would be a player “throwing an elbow.” In the past such contact would always have been ruled an intentional foul. With the guidance provided by last season’s POE, if such contact is above the shoulders, then a flagrant foul should now be the result instead.
Some questions have been raised regarding the fact that the Rules Committee has not provided play situations in the Case Book. While such play situations may be helpful to remind an official of his/her responsibilities in these situations, the lack thereof does not negate last season’s POE.
Many actions are not specifically listed in any rule of the Rules Book. For example, over the years there are specific aspects of handchecking that have only been referred to in the POE section of the Rules Book. Continuous contact by a hand or an arm on a ball handler is one such example. This has long been classified as a handchecking foul although specific language defining this does not exist in the Rules Book or Case Book.
It should also be noted that with regard to intentional fouls, specific language in Rule 4.19.3 states that intentional fouls are not limited just to the items listed there. As the game evolves, play situations continue to challenge our mastery of the rules. This means that, as officials, we always need to strive to increase our understanding of the correct application of such rules.

Not yet, pal. ;)

Ball handler sets an illegal screen with elbows extended ("chinning the ball") and defender runs into elbow.

...soon enough...;)

Stupid NFHS Monkeys ...
 

It's not in the rulebook, at least, not yet. It was a point of emphasis a few years ago. Unless one has access to Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.'s attic library of old rulebooks going back to 1891, there's no way for a rookie to know about "intentional elbows to the head" without more guidance than the 2013-14 rulebook alone provides.

There's the key adjective: "moving."

I believe Bob gives a good example of a stationary elbow to the head that, according to the IAABO citation from PG, wouldn't necessarily be intentional/flagrant. So, it could be a PC, from what I'm reading. Thanks.


Exactly. The Pats have to take care of the Broncos first, before cleaning up any NFC dreck.

Fire Up The Flux Capacitor ...
 

My apologies for being unclear. I was referring to the POE. The OP didn't mention "rookies" so I was going off that POE and my own training here in Maine, where bainsey also works.

Is the elbow "moving" when it's just along for the ride? i.e. body pivot

My State says NO...elbow can be stationary during a pivot.


...east coast bias...;)

Torque ???
 

Did anyone even bother to inform Isaac Newton of this new development?

Take it up with the Big Boys in the "State" Department.;)

I happen to agree with them. Picture a tall post player pivoting normally and hitting a shorter player in the head. Intentional foul? I think not.

Therefore, I have no problem calling "it" the way the State wants.

Question:
A1 Rebounds a missed try, chins the ball with elbows sticking out. A1 pivots and contacts B1 in the head with their elbow. B1 is in legal guarding position.

A) No call, A1 is making a basketball move.

B) Player control foul on A1.

C) Intentional foul on A1.

D) Flagrant foul on A1.

Correct answer, in these parts; B) Player control foul on A1

I'm with Dan, and so is my state. Our information was that this came directly from Indianapolis (Dan, I'm still working on getting a copy of that powerpoint.)

What is the likelihood of them making this an actual rule so we are not 5-10 years down the road having to try to recall these POE's(like the no circling the court, claiming the center circle), to explain for new officials/or old ones that havent read a rules book since they got their license.

Matter of opinion until codified in the rules and the opinion of the various State administrators will be different. Those who wish to put an emphasis on concussion prevention will instruct this play to be called as choice C above.

...you say opinion...The "King of the North(West)" says law...

How would you answer the question if you were in these lands?

When the NFHS rules are unclear the individual State associations are the proper authority to issue an official interpretation. So in the absence of anything being issued directly by the NFHS, you should follow what those from your State office desire.

That's what I do where I call.

Of course, any interpretation by any State administrator will still be only an opinion. An opinion that should be followed due to the authority of the position.

Put In In The Rulebook, Or Forgetaboutit ...
 

So this two year old point of emphasis has come down to a "When in Rome ..." issue. Stupid NFHS monkeys. Makes me want to turn back my high school schedule and move over to the college side. Do you think that UCONN would hire me to do all their home games? Do I have to pass some kind of test first?

So I had this exact play in your question you posted yesterday. I came in with an intentional foul for elbow contact to the head. The girl caught the elbow right in the nose. The varsity official that was evaluating me after the game thought I should have just called an excessive elbow violation. I am all about listening to those who have been here longer than me, but I really had a hard time with that interpretation. One of his P's thought that a PC fouls would have been appropriate. I still think that my sitch is PC at minimum, intentional most likely, but in no way only a violation.

Unless there was a "swing-and-a-miss" followed by a "swing-and-a-hit", I agree wioth you -- it's not a violation.

Without contact, I could see a violation.

But, with contact, I'm going with a foul. It could be PC, Int., or flagrant, and even nothing. If it a simple pivot with the arms in a natural position, I'm going with PC no more than a PC. If they are extended or swung, Int. If they are excessively swung, flagrant.

I think the OP was at my game yesterday too haha.

I had this same play. A1 has the ball just outside the block and is guarded by a much smaller B1. In turning and facing the basket, A1 brings his elbows through with the ball held high and contacts B1 above the shoulders.

I went with PC.

If it's a situation that would have warranted a violation without contact, then I think it has to be an intentional foul if contact is made to the head.

Any "veteran" who wants you to go with a violation instead is just in a hurry to get his varsity game started. Just smile and nod, and then discard his advice before you even get dressed.

Agree.