The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 03:59pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
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?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
One 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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
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).
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
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?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
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"
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 04:24pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
No Argument ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
I can offer an opinion about what I saw or did not see.
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.
__________________
"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 05:15pm.
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 04:33pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
No Flagrant Or Intentional Mentioned ...

.. By me, or by IAABO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
... the options you posted did not indicate anything but PC foul, a blocking foul, and 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 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.
__________________
"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 05:25pm.
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 04:43pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
Opinions ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
... said they could not tell.
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.
__________________
"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 05:16pm.
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 04:48pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
Valued Opinion ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
... mostly argue with yourself.
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.
__________________
"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 05:16pm.
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 05:05pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
Moot Point ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"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 05:26pm.
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 05:14pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
Second Hand Rationales ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
... 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.
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.
__________________
"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 05:27pm.
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 05:56pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 05:57pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
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.
Well nothing you are saying is changing my position. You have a good one.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 06:12pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
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.
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 06:28pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
Update ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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.
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?
__________________
"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 06:58pm.
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 06:44pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
Monopoly ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
Maybe who you work for this is an issue, not where I live.
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.
__________________
"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 06:51pm.
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 07:07pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
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?
Irrelevant. Not what I am referencing and not how my the two states work.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #59 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 07:42pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
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?
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 08:13pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
And I Read Every Word He Says, Reason For My My Occasional Debates With JRutledge ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
When you read what I said instead of trying to force your agenda in this conversation, then maybe you will get it.
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?).
__________________
"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; Mon Apr 26, 2021 at 01:22am.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:09pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1