Above The Shoulder Contact ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
No Contact ???
Quote:
But in earlier posts you said something different, commenting that there was "no" contact "in any way". Quote:
If there was some contact (as some of JRutledge's later posts implied), as shown in the video with some thoughtful study, we can move on to discussing if it was incidental contact contact that doesn't warrant a foul, or illegal contact that does warrant a foul, subjective judgment calls that are always worth discussing and debating in an educational manner. But if one believes that there wasn't any contact (as in JRutledge's early post), one can't discuss and debate illegal/incidental. One (not necessarily JRutledge) can't say "if there was contact" and speculate about illegal/incidental, because one didn't see the contact, so how can one form a logical opinion regarding the legality of contact that one never observed. Quote:
|
You Make The Call ...
Quote:
Nor do we have to explain something that we can't see in the video due to our viewing angle. We could view the video, as presented, make a call, or a no call, and explain why we made the call, or no call (not why she made the call). In the video, as presented, is there contact with the neck area of the defender? If so, in the video, as presented, is this incidental contact, not warranting a foul? Or, in the video, as presented, is this contact illegal, warranting a foul? If one can't see any contact, or doesn't see any contact, just state it, and move on. No contact means no foul. No need to discuss illegal/incidental. No contract. It's just that simple as a stand alone statement. Is there anything else going on that's worth mentioning (travel, defender contact not warranting a foul, defender contact warranting a foul, other contact by the ball handler not warranting a foul, other contact by the ball handler warranting a foul)? JRutledge's knowledge and experience is way too valuable to be dismissed, or ignored. He's worth listening to. I just wish that he was more careful with his wording. Words matter. |
Quote:
|
Contact To The Head ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
Either way, it does not matter, just giving a perspective on what I saw. Not the authority or the final word. I do not work for IAABO and definitely not hanging on every word they state about this play. Good for discussion because you can examine things like positioning, angles, philosophy and mechanics, with multiple different positions. Peace |
Stand By No Such Contact ...
Quote:
Quote:
I'm saying to you that in order for you to judge the contact to be illegal or incidental, you first have to acknowledge that some type of neck/arm contact actually did occur, and that you've actually observed the neck/arm contact in the video, something that you never really confirmed in a definite manner. For example: JRutledge: Although I first believed that no such neck/arm contact occurred, and that there was no contact to the face or head in any way, in fact I believed that I saw nothing, and after BillyMac pointed out exactly where I could observe the arm/neck contact on the video, I changed my mind after actually observing the arm/neck contact in the video. I was wrong, I agree with BillyMac, Camron Rust, and Raymond that there was actually was arm/neck contact. However I disagree with BillyMac, Camron Rust, and Raymond that this arm/neck contact is illegal contact that warrants a foul, but rather, I believe that this is legal incidental contact that does not warrant a foul for the following reasons ... After that, it becomes easy to have a professional and productive discussion and debate with you. Words matter. They should not be simply discarded and cast aside. Quote:
Quote:
|
All Contact Above The Shoulders ...
Quote:
Quote:
... but since you brought it up, you're wrong. The Point Of Emphasis actually did address all types of contact with the head (above the shoulders): 2012-13 Points Of Emphasis Contact Above The Shoulders 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. It says that all contact to the head initiated by a moving elbow has to be adjudicated as some type of foul (common, intentional, or flagrant). The only time a foul may not be adjudicated is contact with the head by a stationary elbow, and even then, under a few circumstances that may be adjudicated as a common foul, but with other circumstances it may also be adjudicated as incidental. The ball handler's arm/elbow in the video was moving, and that resulted in contact to the defender's head (enough to cause defender's head to move), so eight years ago, it was interpreted to be a foul of some type (common, intentional, or flagrant). Of course that may no longer be valid, but that's another story for another time. Bottom line, you were wrong about the old interpretation, it did address all the kinds of contact with the head (above the shoulders). Which kind of contact with the head (above the shoulders) was omitted? A slight touch to the head? Yeah, technically it's contact. But we always are to consider intent and purpose, use common sense, and use our experience. It's why we get paid the big bucks. |
Quote:
Intentional and Flagrant fouls were POEs this year. Where is the language that says contact with the head and shoulders must be considered either Intentional or Flagrant? ;) Peace |
And finally, simple contact is not a foul. Contact can be severe and not be a foul. This is why other levels have completely backed off of rules that used to say any elbow contact was to be upgraded, to only when certain circumstances are not. I have several videos on my page that show plays where elbow contact was not a foul and ruled incidental. Even the NCAA set parameters that stated when elbow contact is illegal. This POE came out when the NCAA was ultra-sensitive about concussions and plays where contact was with the head and later created rules and standards to address these plays and not penalize the player that his someone with an elbow during normal situations. Has the NF changed any rules, updated their philosophy in any rulebook? Stated anything that we must upgrade or consider all contact as an Intentional or Flagrant Foul anywhere in 2020-2021 Rulebook? When someone posts that, let me know. I have said this before, no one cares what is in the rulebook 10 years ago and not just newer officials. This is like me talking about the rules that did not allow more than one logo on socks in the 90s (yes that happened).
Peace |
No Contact ...
Quote:
Quote:
To those of us (me, Camron Rust, and Raymond) that believe that there was contact, just say "Your'e wrong. There wasn't contact". Period, end of discussion. No need for you to rationalize why the contact wan't a foul, because, according to you, there was no contact. Camron Rust, and Raymond both saw the contact, if they were to state an opinion that said contact was legal contact the didn't warrant a foul, that would carry at lot of weight, because they actually saw the contact before forming an opinion (they didn't, they, like me, believe that this is illegal contact that does warrant a foul). You don't see any contact. Just state it, and move on. No contact means no foul. No need to discuss illegal/incidental. No need to discuss an old Point Of Emphasis valid, or invalid. It's a stand alone statement. It's an opinion that shouldn't be ridiculed (despite video evidence), and should be given some consideration. But how can you logically opine on contact that, according to you, you never observed, and doesn't even exist? Quote:
|
POE Did Not Address All The Kinds Of Contact ...
Quote:
Quote:
|
No Need For Infamous 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Point Of Emphasis ...
Quote:
To use your terminology, I "work for" the NFHS. I don't wear two hats like you. I don't work other levels like you. I'm just interested in NFHS high school rules, casebook plays, annual interpretations, and Points of Emphasis. We also both know this: Quote:
Quote:
I didn't even follow the guidelines of the Point Of Emphasis, my call was a player control foul, not an intentional foul as directed by the Point of Emphasis (probably not moving excessively). I would have called it this way (a player control foul) before 2012-13. Ball handler Black #10, with her left arm, illegally pushed White #1 in the jaw, to gain some space while under intense defensive pressure. No eight year old Point of Emphasis needed to make this call. This has been my rationale from the get go, so please stop referring to the Point Of Emphasis. I might (I'd have to see it, unlike JRutledge, I like to actually see calls to form an opinion) have made the same call if Black #10, with her left arm, had gained some space while under intense defensive pressure by pushing White #1 in the shoulder, or chest. But of course, you never observed any contact, so according to you it's impossible to have a foul call under any and all circumstances, Point of Emphasis, or no Point of Emphasis, valid, or invalid, and since, according to you, there was no contact, no manner of convincing, no rationale, will change your mind. In fact, you would have to disagree with anyone who stated that the contact didn't warrant a foul, because there was no contact. And, you may be right (not sarcastic), maybe there was no contact of any type. Maybe the contact shown in the video is just the ball handler's pony tail hitting the defender in the jaw. We really don't get the best angle in the video, that we can agree on. |
IAABO Survey Says …
Disclaimer: Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.
https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...1PezsHSw%3D%3D IAABO Play Commentary Correct Answer: This is a player control foul? Black #10 may have traveled as she recovered the errant pass into the backcourt. After a slight reach-in by the defender, Black #10 starts her dribble by moving directly toward her defender. The Trail official does an excellent job of hustling into the backcourt and has an open view of the play as it develops. Our camera angle is not great as we, the viewer, are straight-lined on this contact. It does appear the dribbler moves her shoulder into the defender's torso, and the defender appears to be displaced. In addition (at 0:32 of the clip), it appears the dribbler also extends her left arm around the neck region of the defender. This is why the player control foul was ruled. The ruling official incorrectly displayed the team control foul at the site of the foul. Based on our manual, when ruling fouls, we should sound the whistle while raising one arm, with fist clenched, straight up. Then verbalize the color and number of the player who committed the foul. Verbalize the type of foul and give the appropriate signal; in this case, a player control foul signal. When a player control foul is ruled, signal directional toward the basket of the team receiving the ball, then indicate the throw-in spot. (Manual p.68) Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a player control foul 47%. This is incidental contact 43%. This is a blocking foul 10%. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:02am. |