Again if you wanted the rules to stay, then use it in all your rulebooks and casebook. And it would help if you gave examples like in this year when that would apply to help take away ambiguousness. They did not do that so we have people like yourself still talking about the POE over 8 years ago, but did not mention the language in the POE about intentional fouls this year.


It was not a rules change. It was a point of emphasis that did not cover the actual language of the rule (kind of like what they did in the past with other POEs). So if POEs are to stand as law like a court case, then put those somewhere we can reference them. There are interpretations in the S&I books that sometimes do not match other places, but at least we can point to those interpretations.

All I know is every level of sports has modified their rules to allow for either judgment or even extra consideration to judgment as to when or if at all contact of a certain kind is considered illegal. They did so in football at the NF level. They even told us in football when you have "incidental" or contact that is not to be ruled illegal with the head and neck area. The NCAA create an entire rule to deal with not penalizing all contact with the head and neck area if certain actions are met. So I have no idea what the NF intends, but it is silly to put something in a POE and never mention it again. Have you seen it mentioned in Referee Magazine? Have you seen it mentioned in the IAABO "You Make the Call" videos (I have every one of those copies they have made) in the last several years? I have not heard anyone suggests that all contact with the head and neck area is special or needs to be something called at more than a common foul, but people on sites like this tell us what should be intended but the rules committee meets multiple times a year. They even have a whole website that could address these things as well as an online magazine to address these things. But to this day, nothing.

You can consider whatever you wish in the video, but this looks like a normal ward off as I suggested, and just call the team control foul and move on. I would love more direction, but they have not given any. So here we are, just a couple of random people in the bigger picture debating something that could be resolved by the people in the actual positions of influence. Even if you tell me what it should be, no one in my state or associations are going to give a damn. That is the problem with his discussion. I cannot say, "Billy Mac on the Officiating discussion board said this should be an intentional foul....." I would get "Who???"

Peace

Best Intentions ...
 

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.T...=0&w=202&h=164

Agree 100%. I couldn't have said it better myself.

While I can't criticize you for deciding that the eight year old Point of Emphasis is null and void, please don't criticize me for be believing that it's still in force. We all know who to criticize. The stupid NFHS.

Guardians Of The IAABO Universe To The Rescue ...
 

Yes. January 20, 2021.

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only: Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...2FIE%2Bg%3D%3D

IAABO International Play Commentary: This is an intentional foul. If a player swings elbows excessively, (faster than the rest of the player’s torso), and contacts an opponent, it is at a minimum an intentional foul. If the contact is severe or the player ‘measures up’ the opponent, it is flagrant. (2012-13 POE) In this play, Red #35 swings her elbows in at a pace that exceeds the speed of the torso. This should be ruled an intentional personal foul. Officials only have rules support to rule this incidental contact or a common foul (player control foul) if the player's elbow was stationary when the contact occurred. A stationary elbow is defined as an elbow that is not moving faster than the rest of the player’s torso. (2012-13 POE)

However, there are some flaws in this commentary. Why did the IAABO International "Gang of Four" believe that stationary is the same as moving but not excessively moving? I figure we have three choices: not moving (stationary), moving but not excessively moving, and excessively moving.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...51eb950c_m.jpg

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

I did not say anything about this being null and void, I said that they could have clarified just this year with situations that are not being considered intentional fouls. Again, Intentional Foul is a POE this year, and nothing about contact to the head and neck area in that statement. I will also consider calling an elbow play as an intentional foul as I always have, but just because there is contact does not mean it rises to that level. This play was not a blow, this was using the arm to push off and it got a little high. I am comfortable with my position on this as I would be at the other levels that suggest that this would not likely be anything but a common or team control foul as well. I am a little tired of having this debate, but I think this is caused by the not addressing this by the NF, not necessarily individuals.

Peace

Sick And Tired ...
 

Agree.

As my Mom used to say, "I'm sick and tired ..." (referring to the poor behavior of me and my brother).

She would also say, "You kids are going to send me to Middletown".

Middletown, Connecticut is the location of the Connecticut State Psychiatric Hospital.

Still Ancient History ...
 

This doesn't really add anything substantial to the debate, but I did find several references (none sourced to the NFHS) online to a 2013-14 NFHS clarification of this issue.

I actually don't remember this NFHS clarification, can't find the original NFHS source, but (if true) it does bring the issue one year closer to the present (but it's still ancient history at seven years old).

Move forward to 2013-14 where NFHS further clarified in a Point of Emphasis the two varieties of this contact. Rule an intentional Foul when contact above the shoulders is not the result of excessively swinging the elbows – but in past seasons might have been ruled a common player control foul. Rule a flagrant Foul when contact above the shoulders is the result of excessively swinging the elbows. Remember, in scholastic contests, when a player “excessively swings” their elbows, at a minimum, a violation should be ruled even if no contact is made. If the contact is the result of excessive swinging prior to the official stopping play (for a violation) then a flagrant foul may be ruled – unless the contact is judged to be “slight of nature.” Penalizing rebounders for contacting defenders with their elbows, when pivoting to release an outlet pass should be at a minimum be ruled intentional – with the possibility of being flagrant, based on the “excessive nature” of the swinging.

Ohio Valley Board Of Approved Basketball Officials, Dec 13, 2019 (not a NFHS source): https://www.ovboardbasketballofficia...-the-shoulders. Accompanying video: https://video.wixstatic.com/video/e4...p/mp4/file.mp4

Sixty Seconds On Officiating (followup to 2014 post), 2019 (not a NFHS source): https://ref60.com/2019/01/my-elbow-cant-do-that/

Sixty Seconds On Officiating, 2014 (not a NFHS source): https://ref60.com/2014/11/elbow-contact-above-shoulder/

And I've already posted this "flawed" IAABO International play commentary, January 20, 2021 (not a NFHS source, no mention of more recent clarification): https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1042125

Also, I found two illustrations from the original NFHS 2012-13 Point of Emphasis:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...cb334ba0_m.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6a90e8ab_m.jpg

Why has the NFHS "left us hanging"?

If the POE "guidelines" no longer apply, retract them.

If they do apply, put them in the current rulebook, or casebook, or at the minimum, emphasize it again.

Fish, or cut bait.

Stupid NFHS.

Or, am I stupid for believing that these POE "guidelines" still apply in high school basketball ؟ (It's a rhetorical question, note the reverse question mark, not intended to be answered.)

Nuggets Of Wisdom ...
 

Found these nuggets of wisdom while doing research:

If a NFHS Point of Emphasis falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it still exist?

Young Basketball Official: "So, BillyMac, why did you charge that player with an intentional foul? His foul didn't appear to meet any of requirements of an intentional foul as defined in Rule 4."

BillyMac: "Because the player was swinging his elbows, not excessively, and he accidentally struck, not too severely, the opponent in the head."

Young Basketball Official: "Please show me that in the rulebook or casebook."

BillyMac: "Sure it's right here. Wait? It's not in our 2020-21 rulebook? It's in the 2012-13 rulebook. Check out your 2012-13 rulebook when you get home."

Young Basketball Official: "I don't have a 2012-13 rulebook. Back in 2012-13, I was still playing basketball in middle school. I didn't become a basketball official until last year."

BillyMac: "Well then young grasshopper, see Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. He's got that old rulebook up in his attic. I'm sure that he'll be pleased to climb the attic stairs and get it for you."

Aaaaaaaaaand, scene.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.J...=0&w=279&h=186

IAABO Survey Says …
 

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...4gaKHDvw%3D%3D

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This is a team control foul.

This is clearly illegal contact committed by the offensive low post player. The offensive player extends an arm into the head and neck area and displaces the defender. It is tough to tell from this camera angle, but if the elbow contacted the defender above the head, this contact could be ruled intentional.

The lead official has a good angle on the play, but might of had a better angle by taking a step of two toward the sideline to get wider.

Illegal "off ball" contact remains an area in which officials need to make a concentrated effort to improve. Contact such as this needs to be addressed. If officials are diligent in enforcing this type of contact, it goes a long way in ensuring illegal contact such as this does not escalate throughout the game.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a team control foul 95% (including me). This is incidental contact - play on! 5%.

Above The Shoulders ???
 

How can one contact a defender above the head? Hat? Hair? Text balloon? Defender upside down?

If this is ruled an offensive Intentional foul would the defense shoot two free throws and get the ball? Treated like any intentional foul regardless if offensive team committed it?

Yes. The penalty for an intentional personal foul does not depend upon which team is in possession of the ball. Furthermore, if you check the definition of a team control foul, you will see that it must be a common foul, so any foul which is ruled intentional or flagrant cannot be a team control foul.

Contact Above Shoulders ...
 

That was then, this is now:

4.19.3 SITUATION F: After a rebound, A1, while holding the ball, pivots and A1’s elbow contacts B1 above the shoulders. A1's elbow is violently and excessively swung at a speed in excess of the player’s torso. RULING: If the contact is violent or excessive, a flagrant foul shall be called. (4-27, 4-19-2, 4-19-3, 4-19-4)

9.13.1 SITUATION B: A1 is trapped in the corner by B1 and B2, who are in legal guarding position. In an attempt to create space, A1 rapidly swings arms/elbows while using the shoulders as pivots (a) without making contact; (b) making contact with an opponent above the shoulders and elbows are moving faster than the body. RULING: In (a), A1 excessively swinging arms/elbows without contacting the opponent is a violation. Team B is awarded a designated spot throw-in nearest the violation. In (b), this is considered an intentional foul. (9-13-1)

9.13.2 SITUATION: A5 catches the ball on a rebound, “chins” the ball and then turns (with the elbow at the same speed as the body) to make an outlet pass with the elbow leading the way. Prior to releasing the ball, A1’s elbow contacts B5 above the shoulders. RULING: This may be ruled incidental contact or a player control foul.