|
|||
Above The Shoulder Contact ...
Quote:
__________________
"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 Apr 24, 2021 at 01:11am. |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael Mick Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
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. Words matter.
__________________
"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 Apr 24, 2021 at 01:32am. |
|
|||
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.
__________________
"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 Apr 24, 2021 at 01:29am. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Contact To The Head ...
Quote:
__________________
"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 Apr 24, 2021 at 08:09am. |
|
|||
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael Mick Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Stand By No Such Contact ...
So you stand by when you stated that there was no neck/arm contact at all?
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:
__________________
"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 Apr 24, 2021 at 05:26pm. |
|
|||
All Contact Above The Shoulders ...
Quote:
I didn't want to dive down this rabbit hole because the jury's out regarding the validity, or lack of validity, of an eight year old NFHS Point Of Emphasis that hasn't been updated recently, that never made it's way into the rulebook, casebook, or a recent annual interpretation, and that no officials with less than eight years of experience may even know about ... ... 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.
__________________
"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 Apr 24, 2021 at 06:04pm. |
|
|||
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael Mick Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael Mick Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
No Contact ...
If you don't see any contact at all, than how can you offer a valid opinion on said contact regarding whether the contact is legal incidental contact that doesn't warrant a foul, or illegal contact that does warrant a foul?
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? No such language because the Point of Emphasis just restates verbatim (no additional commentary) the existing rule as written, the same rule that existed in 2012-13 when the infamous Point of Emphasis came out. While the rule and current 2020-21 Intentional Foul Point of Emphasis does list some examples, it does so in a very general way (one exception: contact with a thrower-in), such as "excessive contact", not listing such contact such as grabbing a jersey on a breakaway layup, bear hug on a breakaway layup, two hand push from behind on a breakaway layup, etc. Rather than listing all the examples of intentional fouls, the rule and current 2020-21 Intentional Foul Point of Emphasis simply states "are not limited to"
__________________
"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; Sun Apr 25, 2021 at 03:25pm. |
|
|||
POE Did Not Address All The Kinds Of Contact ...
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"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) |
|
|||
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.
__________________
"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; Sun Apr 25, 2021 at 03:29pm. |
|
|||
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%.
__________________
"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) |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
out of box bat contact | CecilOne | Softball | 2 | Wed Mar 15, 2017 09:36pm |
How to contact? | PABlue | Baseball | 3 | Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:24pm |
When is hair contact a contact? | OmniSpiker | Volleyball | 6 | Tue Nov 04, 2008 06:27pm |
+ POS---Does anyone have a contact there? | jwwashburn | Baseball | 25 | Wed Aug 02, 2006 07:32pm |