You clearly have never been a person responsible for training or evaluating officials on actual games. If you had, there are many things on video without the multiple angles you can question or wonder what the officials saw. As stated when you do not see something the official sees, you ask them or evaluate the situation based on what the video shows. It is not uncommon to state that officials "beat the tape." That means try your best to call things the video supports. If we are debating if there was contact by the defender or contact by the offensive player, then you are not beating the tape. So yes I can offer an opinion about what I saw or did not see.

I can say a lot of things. And in the options YOU POSTED did not indicate anything but PC foul, a blocking foul incidental contact. Nothing said to call this flagrant or intentional, which suggests to me they did not feel that it rose to any such level.

Good for you and them, do you want a cookie? Did you get a big prize because you believe there was contact? Nope. I was not making my opinion based on others. If I wanted to then I could mention the couple of people that said they could not tell. Glad you think this is a contest.

I stated what I said some time ago and you do what you do, repeat the same argument over and over again!!!! This is what annoys people, even the people you referenced. You are mostly going on and on about things that really are not relevant to the original discussion and mostly argue with yourself. Not sure why it is so important for me to agree with you on anything.

We are well aware of what the language states. But there is no special dispensation in the rules as there was not 20 plus years ago. So nothing is stopping your or any "rulebook official" calling more than a common foul of some kind when there is contact with the head and neck area, but you certainly do not have some directive requiring that to take place. I never have said you should not consider any contact with the head and neck area for an upgraded foul, just said that it is not automatic or must be called as a result of such contact. It could be ruled incidental as the rules state in 4-27 that severe contact can be ruled incidental and no such rule says that contact with the head and neck area cannot be ruled incidental. In this video, it is questionable if there is any contact as the defender from the angle moves backwards, but I see nothing that suggests contact was with or only with that area of the defender. As I stated before, if the contact is with the torso and after that, there is some contact above the shoulders, then in this particular play it is incidental at best. Again, still cannot show me a place where the rules say what you are suggesting. It is a judgment call and not a very good one if that is your point of view. But what else is new?


Peace

No Argument ...
 

Yes you can, never said you couldn't. If you didn't see any contact, I've got no problem with that, disagree, but have no argument.

But how can you comment on contact that warranted or didn't warrant a foul for contact that you yourself didn't see?

Unless you mean the foul was not warranted because there wasn't contact. That I disagree with in this video, but I respect that opinion. In order for you to do that, be sure not to use the word "incidental" (a word that was used several times in your posts) because that does imply some type of legal contact.

No Flagrant Or Intentional Mentioned ...
 

.. By me, or by IAABO.

Good point. I personally didn't even consider an upgrade, but I have sent an email to the IAABO co-coordinators of interrupters asking why an upgrade wasn't even considered an option based on the old Point of Emphasis.

Oddly, they used this old Point of Emphasis to "upgrade" in a citation on an IAABO Make The Call Video Play Commentary posted on January 20, 2021.

IAABO Make The Call Video 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. (2012-13 POE)

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

Ill get back to everybody once I get a reply.

Opinions ...
 

Lots of opinions, in regard to whether, or not, there was, or wasn't, contact of any type; and if there was contact, plenty of opinions regarding whether, or not (incidental), the contact warranted a foul call; and then whether it was a blocking foul, or a player control foul. Lots of room around the table for discussion about a poor quality video, including some that didn't want to comment at all on record because of such a bad angle in the video.

Valued Opinion ...
 

No, I'm arguing with you, not necessarily because of your opinions, but rather, because of the sometimes confusing and contradictory appearing words (incidental) that you use to express your usually valued opinion.

Moot Point ...
 

Agree with you on the first point. Second point is moot because I did not invoke the old Point of Emphasis to explain my call, and did not rule intentional as the Point of Emphasis stipulates.

Regarding "automatic", you may be right, because we do not have any recent citations, of any type, stating that the old Point of Emphasis is still valid.

However, I may be right because we don't have any citation of any type stating that the old Point of Emphasis is now invalid. Nor do we have any rule changes, caseplay changes, annual interpretations, or newer Point of Emphases that would give even a hint that the old Point of Emphasis is now invalid.

Jury's out, and by jury, I mean the NFHS, not BillyMac, not JRutledge, not the Forum, and not IAABO.

Only the highest levels of the NFHS know for sure.

Second Hand Rationales ...
 

Still can't figure out how you can state this opinion when you don't see the contact, unless you mean that "any" ruling of contact (incidental, player control foul) is impossible because there wasn't any contact, only basing your opinion on observations stated by others, including me, in the thread. If that's the case, then I finally get it. I still disagree, but I get some of your second hand rationales.

If you stop trying to argue with yourself you might figure out basic things that others are telling you. ;)

Peace

Well nothing you are saying is changing my position. You have a good one.

Peace

I do not work for the NF or answer to them. So unless they put something in the rulebook that is specific, the people I work for have not ever told us to call an Intentional or Flagrant Foul for simple elbow contact. Maybe who you work for this is an issue, not where I live. The only time this is an issue is when people try to use old POEs and try to use some standard that is at other levels that is an issue.

Peace

Update ...
 

Did the people you work high school for get on board in 2012-13?

If so, how long ago did the people you work high school for decide that the infamous 2012-13 POE was no longer valid, and for what reason? And how was the invalidity announced?

Monopoly ...
 

Great point.

Things are pretty simple regarding consistency here in Connecticut. Every single high school official in the entire state is an IAABO trained official. Every single high school game (and many middle school games) is assigned by an IAABO local board employed assigner. All local IAABO interpreters (trainers) coordinate under the guidance one IAABO state interpreter, who is guided by the four IAABO International co-coordinators of interpreters (the Gang of Four).

Our state interscholastic sports governing body (CIAC) pretty much follows the guidelines of IAABO (it's the only game in town).

And finally, IAABO International is very chummy with the NFHS (I believe that IAABO has a permanent seat at the NFHS rules committee table). Seldom (exception: last time free throw went from hit to release) would IAABO, on any level, international, state, or local, teach (that's what IAABO does, number one priority is to teach) anything that goes against any NFHS guidelines.

Irrelevant. Not what I am referencing and not how my the two states work.

Peace

When you read what I said instead of trying to force your agenda in this conversation, then maybe you will get it. Doubt it, but stop posting 8 times before someone gives you an answer. ;)

Peace

And I Read Every Word He Says, Reason For My My Occasional Debates With JRutledge ...
 

Curious about the statute of limitations on a Point of Emphasis, but also had a had a hidden agenda.

Good catch.

Thanks for not answering (seriously, not being sarcastic), this debate has gone on long enough, was getting boring (even for me), and was no longer "Fun" (like the thread title states).

I'll let everyone know if and when I get a reply (for me, or against me) on this old POE from the "Gang of Four".

At this point, I really don't care what side I fall on, I just want an answer of some sort, even if it just applies to IAABO.

I may also followup with the "Gang of Four" on the "Interpretation" thread from a few days ago (what happens to old interpretations no longer in the casebook, or annual interpretations that never make their way into the casebook?).