2019-20 NFHS Interpretations

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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

[BillyMac]

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

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... we all knew what they meant ...

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

(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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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:

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.