I am one who believes that old Points of Emphasis, vanished casebook plays, and annual one-time only interpretations are still valid as long as there are no relevant rule changes or interpretation changes to invalidate such, and that some casebook interpretations may be dropped from the casebook due to page limitations, or inadvertent oversights.
Other Forum members logically argue that everything valid should be in the current NFHS Rulebook or NFHS Casebook, and if not, old interpretations, and old Points of Emphasis (statute of limitations), not in the current NFHS Rulebook or NFHS Casebook should be ignored, often citing the inability of new, or inexperienced, officials to know such if it's not in the current books.
Examples include:
10.6.1 Situation E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. Ruling: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down (vanished from casebook in 2005-06).
2012-13 Points Of Emphasis 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 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.
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.
I am planning to attend the 2021 IAABO Fall Seminar in Trumbull, CT, October 1, 2021 to October 3, 2021, and I intend to broach this general issue (the validity of old Points of Emphasis, vanished casebook plays, or annual one-time only interpretations) with the “Gang of Four” IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters. I won’t be ambushing them, I’ve already contacted them in regard to this issue, and they have replied that they will try to get some input from the NFHS.
Can any Forum members think of any other examples of old Points of Emphasis, vanished casebook plays, or annual one-time only interpretations that we have debated the validity of here on the Forum?
I would like to present additional examples regarding this issue to the IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters.
