Fun With Multiple Illegal Contacts …

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The current NFHS interpretation ... (2012-13 NFHS POE)

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Everyone was trying that type of ruling about that time ... The NFHS has been silent on the topic since then ...

The IAABO International "Gang of Four" co-interpreters are calling it "current".

How can one call an eight year old point of emphasis that hasn't been updated (or even mentioned) in eight years, and can't be found anywhere in the current rulebook and/or casebook, be called "current"?

Does the word "current" imply that a change is about to happen?

Not blaming the four co-interpreters, they can only work with the tools that the NFHS gives them.

Stupid NFHS.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The IAABO International "Gang of Four" co-interpreters are calling it "current".

How can one call an eight year old point of emphasis that hasn't been updated (or even mentioned) in eight years, and can't be found anywhere in the current rulebook and/or casebook, be called "current"?

Does the word "current" imply that a change is about to happen?

Not blaming the four co-interpreters, they can only work with the tools that the NFHS gives them.

Stupid NFHS.

My state never wanted us to call it automatically, but to consider the actions of the player similar to the NCAA interpretation is today. And just like the NF, the IHSA at least has said almost nothing about this kind of play. Just emphasizing we have rules in place to consider these just like any other play. Again many of us never work for IAABO so I cannot comment on what they believe. I will say they have not mentioned this in any of their videos at least recently. So not sure they are taking a hard line here either.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

IAABO ... not sure they are taking a hard line here either.

Pretty difficult to take a "hard line" on something that has been barely discussed at the IAABO local (my little corner), state (Connecticut), or international level in the eight years since the NFHS point of emphasis was first publicized (that is, up until this recent video play commentary). While IAABO, on the local, state, and international level, has quite often discussed intentional fouls, the mention of intentional fouls involving contact above the shoulders has been noticeably minimal, almost as if forgotten.

And keeping in mind the turnover rate of basketball officials, a large percentage of IAABO members (and probably about the same percentage of basketball officials who are not IAABO members) have probably never heard of this eight year old NFHS point of emphasis.

Again, I'm not blaming IAABO, they can only work with the tools that the NFHS gives them, and at least, presently, IAABO tries to stay in its lane.

Stupid NFHS.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Pretty difficult to take a "hard line" on something that has been barely discussed at the IAABO local (my little corner), state (Connecticut), or international level in the eight years since the NFHS point of emphasis was first publicized (that is, up until this recent video play commentary). While IAABO, on the local, state, and international level, has quite often discussed intentional fouls, the mention of intentional fouls involving contact above the shoulders has been noticeably minimal, almost as if forgotten.

I did find this:

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1041036

Why did the IAABO International "Gang of Four" co-interpreters believe that stationary is the same as moving but not excessively moving?

IAABO International "Gang of Four" co-interpreters: A stationary elbow is defined as an elbow that is not moving faster than the rest of the player’s torso.

Funk and Wagnalls Dictionery: Stationary: Fixed in a station, course, or mode; immobile.

NFHS: Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul. An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul. A moving elbow that is excessive can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

[Nevadaref]

“Option #2: Personal Foul & Two Technical Fouls
The ball becomes dead when the whistle blows for the handchecking foul.” - IAABO ruling.

Nope that’s not accurate. Care to try again?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

“The ball becomes dead when the whistle blows for the handchecking foul.” - IAABO ruling. Nope that’s not accurate. Care to try again?

6-7: The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when:
ART. 5 An official’s whistle is blown ...
ART. 7 A foul, other than player-control or team-control, occurs ...

Basketball Rules Fundamentals 16: The official’s whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead (it is already dead).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

5-7: The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when:
ART. 5 An official’s whistle is blown ...
ART. 7 A foul, other than player-control or team-control, occurs ...

Basketball Rules Fundamentals 16: The official’s whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead (it is already dead).

Actually, that’s 6-7