The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 10, 2019, 11:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Official View Post

At the risk of being pedantic (and beating a dead horse), does no one who knows proper terminology review these interps?

Also, "at halftime" implies that the first half is over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
Agree. So it must be a dead ball intentional contact technical foul.
If A1, A2, and A3 were passing the ball, as is mentioned in the interp, that implies the ball was live. "At halftime" probably means as the clock is winding down to end the half and A1 is holding for the last shot (or just holding). Instead of "At halftime", it would have been better to say "Near the end of the 2nd quarter".

As for their terminology, a "personal foul" is fine. That is what it is. Not being further qualified implies that it is just a personal foul that isn't intentional or flagrant. The correction is that a personal foul was not enough, it should have been an intentional foul (also personal in nature but qualified). Not sure what is wrong there.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 10, 2019, 11:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
If A1, A2, and A3 were passing the ball, as is mentioned in the interp, that implies the ball was live. "At halftime" probably means as the clock is winding down to end the half and A1 is holding for the last shot (or just holding). Instead of "At halftime", it would have been better to say "Near the end of the 2nd quarter".

As for their terminology, a "personal foul" is fine. That is what it is. Not being further qualified implies that it is just a personal foul that isn't intentional or flagrant. The correction is that a personal foul was not enough, it should have been an intentional foul (also personal in nature but qualified). Not sure what is wrong there.
Maybe A1, A2, A3 are the officials.

And, while we all knew what they meant, it *is* the phrase "at halftime" that should not be in this published interp.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 10, 2019, 12:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
As for their terminology, a "personal foul" is fine. That is what it is. Not being further qualified implies that it is just a personal foul that isn't intentional or flagrant. The correction is that a personal foul was not enough, it should have been an intentional foul (also personal in nature but qualified). Not sure what is wrong there.
It would have been more accurate to say "a common foul."
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 10, 2019, 12:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Official View Post
It would have been more accurate to say "a common foul."
True, but personal was not incorrect. The point was they want it to be intentional and that comes across clearly.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 10, 2019, 01:09pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Official View Post
It would have been more accurate to say "a common foul."
Isn't proper terminology a POE for the NFHS?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 10, 2019, 01:13pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,773
Cause The Editors Gonna Edit, Edit, Edit, Edit, Edit …

With apologies to Taylor Swift (Shake It Off, 2014).

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
... we all knew what they meant ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
The point was they want it to be intentional and that comes across clearly.
Agree. Clear as a bell.

But the interpretation still could have been better worded considering that it was going to be published for tens of thousands to read.

Many of these interpretations read like they were written in pencil on Post-It Notes for only a few people to read.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Thu Oct 10, 2019 at 04:39pm.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 10, 2019, 01:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond View Post
Isn't proper terminology a POE for the NFHS?
Yep. Didn't stop the term "midcourt line," which they explicitly called out in last year's POEs, from making it past their editors, as Billy pointed out below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
SITUATION 9: A1, while dribbling the ball in the frontcourt near the midcourt line, has the ball strike the midcourt line and as the ball comes up from the dribble, A1 touches the ball and continues to dribble. RULING: Backcourt violation. A1 may not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt, before it went to the backcourt. (9-9-1)

In ancient times the midcourt (twenty-eight foot) line separated the midcourt from the forecourt, and among other things, was used to allow a new five second closely guarded count when the dribbler crossed the midcourt line moving forward.

Doesn't anybody at the NFHS read their own stuff?

2018-19 NFHS Basketball Points of Emphasis
Officiating Professionalism And Use Of Proper Terminology
Division Line (Not Center, Mid-Court, or Time Line)


Silly monkeys (In Memoriam, Jurassic Referee).
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 10, 2019, 01:56pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,773
A Bunch Of Amateurs ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Official View Post
Didn't stop the term "midcourt line," which they explicitly called out in last year's POEs, from making it past their editors ...
Many officials are whatcha call "experts".

Editors, obviously, aren't "professionals".

Like I already said, written in pencil on Post-It Notes for only a few people to read.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Thu Oct 10, 2019 at 04:45pm.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 11, 2019, 10:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
(Tony Orlando and Dawn, 1973)

SITUATION 2: A1 is wearing a ribbon to control her hair. RULING: Illegal. Ribbons are considered decorations and the athlete should not be allowed to enter the contest while wearing a ribbon in the hair. (3-5-4e)

3-5-D: Rubber, cloth or elastic bands may be used to control hair.


I've been screwing this up for forty years. Ribbons are made of cloth. Cloth is a legal material for hair control devices. How does one use a cloth ribbon to control hair? By tying it in a knot.

I've always allowed cloth ribbons tied in a simple knot, or simple bow (as used to tie one's shoes) to be used to control hair.

I guess that I was wrong. Not the first time, won't be the last time.

I'll be sure to rule this situation correctly for the next forty years.
This ribbon interpretation is one of the dumbest I’ve seen. A scrunchy is legal but ribbon is a decoration? Give me a break
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 11, 2019, 11:05am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,773
Scarlet Ribbons (For Her Hair), (Roy Orbison, 1970) …

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin green View Post
This ribbon interpretation is one of the dumbest I’ve seen. A scrunchy is legal but ribbon is a decoration? Give me a break
Before this recent interpretation, I allowed cloth ribbons tied in a simple knot, or simple bow (as used to tie one's shoes) to be used to control hair.

But I never allowed these (images below) because these ribbons are most certainly worn for decorative purposes, not for the sole purpose of controlling hair.





__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Fri Oct 11, 2019 at 02:43pm.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 11, 2019, 02:41pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,773
Take The Ribbon From Your Hair (Kris Kristofferson, 1970) ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
Before this recent interpretation, I allowed cloth ribbons tied in a simple knot, or simple bow (as used to tie one's shoes) to be used to control hair.
Now we can't allow a simple functional cloth ribbon/bow like this:

__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sat Oct 12, 2019 at 08:20am.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 12, 2019, 08:33am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Official View Post
Yep. Didn't stop the term "midcourt line," which they explicitly called out in last year's POEs, from making it past their editors, as Billy pointed out below.
And that is why it was a dumb POE on many levels.

Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 12, 2019, 10:07am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,773
Count The Basket ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
And that is why it was a dumb POE on many levels.
From last year's Point of Emphasis:

In an era of round-the-clock commentators using today’s latest lingo to describe game situations to entertain, officials cannot be caught up in that shift to less than professional terminology … The use of proper terminology is one of many steps to ensure that the perception of game officials and the reality of their actions, remains on a higher plane and a critical part of the game.

While I agree with the intent and purpose of this Point of Emphasis, it was the list of terms that many of us, including me, quibble with.

I didn't like most of the example terms on the list from day one, too nit-picky.

Television commentators may be able get away with confusing basket interference and goaltending, experienced officials can't, or shouldn't (I realize that basket interference and goaltending were not on the list, it's just one example of a gross vocabulary confusion).

Sure, many of the terms are a little nit-picky. Nobody has ever criticized me for stating, "Count the basket", and I hope that they never do because I'm not removing that from my vocabulary.

And I would never criticize an official who states, "Count the hoop".

In terms of vocabulary, officials must be on "higher plane" than players, coaches, fans, and television commentators. We're not their equals. Never were, never are. We're the professionals. We're whatcha call experts, and we should talk like experts whenever it's appropriate to do so.

Certainly not the entire list, but maybe a small portion of the list is worth thinking about.

And if not the list, certainly the intent and purpose of this Point of Emphasis is worth thinking about.

There certainly should be a difference between the vocabulary that officials use orally in conversation (especially amongst ourselves), and the vocabulary that we use in written form. I believe that we should be more careful using vocabulary in written form, which often will be distributed to many stakeholders.

I'm not going to criticize any current official who uses the term midcourt (I may simply mention it to a rookie official), but I found it quite humorous that the NFHS told us last year not to use the antiquated term midcourt, and then they went ahead and used the term this year.

Which is why I called them (NFHS) out on it.

Silly monkeys.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Mon Oct 14, 2019 at 08:08am.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The New in the NFHS 2019-20 Casebook Freddy Basketball 6 Mon Aug 19, 2019 02:51pm
2019-20 NFHS Rules Changes SC Official Basketball 91 Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:29am
2019 NFHS Questionnaire Rich Basketball 79 Fri Feb 15, 2019 06:56pm
2019 nfhs agr8zebra Softball 3 Sun Feb 03, 2019 01:22pm
2019 NFHS Rule Changes Stat-Man Softball 16 Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:54pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1