Should Be In The Rulebook ...
 

Above the shoulders contact Point of Emphasis should be in the rulebook. Incidental contact? Common foul? Intentional foul? Flagrant foul?

2012-13 POE: 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.

The specificity of the POE doesn't' show up in the rulebook.

A peek from behind the curtain for me as well confirms these plus States have the option to adopt the 28 foot coaches box. Points of emphasis will be freedom of movement, bench decorum, and rough play in the post.

Obviously we will need to wait for official press release but my source is one who was in the room of the meeting.

So the only real change is coaching box expansion? Or is that all that was important that was mentioned?

Peace

I'm Not Proud To Say ...
 

If your watching Connecticut, it may not only be the lead not counting. Not counting, by any official, is our biggest problem according to outside observers of Connecticut State tournament games.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.V...=0&w=300&h=300

That's My Story And I'm Sticking To It ...
 

It's "Five Two", and "Blue". I'm 100% right and everybody else that says otherwise 100% wrong.

Now, that didn't take too much time, did it? And if you don't like it, then tough tarts, and I'll take my basketball and go home. Then where will you all be without a basketball?

Period. End of discussion. Can I make myself more clear?

Questions? Forget it. I'm not taking any damn questions.

Discussion? Also forget it. Discussion is not needed when I'm right and everybody that says otherwise is wrong.

And remember. I'm already an Esteemed Forum Member and I just reached 15,000 posts.

What's the next rank above Esteemed Forum Member?

Forum King?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8z8SpgmF0sA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

He's A Rebel (The Crystals, 1962) …
 

Good example. Connecticut. 100% IAABO mechanics, and even then, we have some local variations within Connecticut, and some differences with "International" guidelines.

Liked It Better The Old Way ...
 

If you're talking about the throwin kick, then I agree that the word illegal made it easier for me to understand and officiate the play. Without the word illegal it's difficult for me to understand why the throwin didn't end. I now have trouble remembering to leave the arrow alone after the new throwin. In the olden days, I do remember saying to a questioning coach, "We don't change the arrow because the kick illegally ended the throwin". That wording doesn't apply any more (but the outcome is the same).

4.42.5 SITUATION: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in.
A1’s throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B2. RULING: As a result of B2’s kicking
violation, Team A is awarded a new throw-in at the designated spot nearest to
where the kicking violation (illegal touching) occurred. Since the alternating-possession
throw-in had not been contacted legally, the throw-in has not ended and
therefore, the arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession
throw-in. COMMENT: The kicking violation ends the alternating-possession
throw-in and as a result, a non-alternating-possession throw-in is administered.
When the ball is legally touched on the subsequent throw-in following the kicking
violation, the arrow shall not be changed and shall remain with Team A.

After trying to get officials to get their heads around the Fed's retraction of the word "legally", I just resorted to the easier route of saying that since 6-4-5 and 6.4.5A were left untouched, nothing has changed. Nobody argued with that.
But I wish they'd tell us why they make the edits that they do. For instance, by adding the words "or backboard" in 9-1-3a in the 15/16 rule, they made an obvious error. Had they been required to explain to us the reason for adding those words, they surely would have seen the error of the revision and it never would have been published.
Ah heck, I guess we take things much to seriously when we expect revisions to the books to be well thought out. Sadly.

Be careful, or I'll set your post count to a negative number. :D

Love the post, just wished you would have typed "..make myself clearer?" ;)

From what I was told, that was the only real point of consequence. There will supposedly be language put out related to the "warning" of a coach and an emphasis on, once again, calling intentional fouls.

Having a 28-foot box would make me quite happy. Let the coach go where he wants to coach as long as he's behaving himself.

Agreed. I'd get rid of the seatbelt rule, too, if it was up to me. But this would be a start.

Also agree. The less we have to police the specific location of the coach, the better.

That said, I still see a few that go too far the other way and get in front of the scorer's table. I've even had a scorer mention to me that they couldn't clearly see the game because the coach was blocking her view when we were at the far end of the court.