Fun With Contact …

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I see no such contact ... I see no clear contact to the face or head in any way

Check out 11, 32, and 39 second mark. Ball handler's left arm/elbow, as it moves upward, contacts defender's left neck, cheek, and face (in that order). Ball handler's pony tail partly obscures the contact, but one can still see the contact in small unobscured space between the arm/elbow/neck/cheek/face on the left and the pony tail on the right. Defender's head "tilts" (I exaggerated by using the word "snap") up and back as a result of said upper movement contact to her neck, cheek, and face.

Anytime a moving elbow contacts a player in the head, a foul (of some type) should to be charged.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Check out 11, 32, and 39 second mark. Ball handler's left arm/elbow, as it moves upward, contacts defender's left neck, cheek, and face (in that order). Ball handler's pony tail partly obscures the contact, but one can still see the contact in small unobscured space between the arm/elbow/neck/cheek/face on the left and the pony tail on the right. Defender's head "tilts" (I exaggerated by using the word "snap") up and back as a result of said upper movement contact to her neck, cheek, and face.

I do not know why you keep thinking that I have not watched this video several times. I watch a lot more video than most people and I see nothing that stands out that states that there was such contact that would warrant a foul. Again, it is about the angle. I would not make that call from the endline if I was there, so why would I say this is what she saw or why she made the call? Again, all contact is not a foul. This contact that you say is there does not clearly move the player from the angle we have and unless you just want to look like a girl's official, call that. Because nothing I saw is clear as to what if any contact took place. Also, was there contact before by the defender? I cannot tell, which would influence what I call.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Anytime a moving elbow contacts a player in the head, a foul (of some type) should to be charged.

Then you are going to call a lot of BS that did nothing to either player.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... a moving elbow contacts a player in the head ...

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I see no such contact ... see no clear contact to the face or head in any way ... to what if any contact took place ... I see nothing ...

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... there was such contact that would warrant a foul ... all contact is not a foul. This contact that you say is there does not clearly move the player ...

It's difficult to professionally discuss and debate with JRutledge when he keeps moving the goalposts.

In one post he states that there is "no such contact" replying to the "moving elbow contacts a player in the head" contact reference that I had described in an earlier post. And he followups with that he sees "no clear contact to the face or head in any way". Pretty strong words, "in any way". Also, "I see nothing".

That's why I asked him to take another look at the video, pointing out certain things to look for to see the contact that he opined never occurred.

In another post he states that there is "no such contact that would warrant a foul", following up with "all contact is not a foul" (that I, in general, agree with), both of his statements implying that there was indeed contact, but that it wasn't a foul (which can professionally discussed and debated).

Since JRutledge can't seem to decide if there was "no" contact, or that there was contact but that it wasn't contact that would "warrant a foul" (I can't see an admission of no contact as entertaining a discussion of whether or not a foul was warranted, no contact always equals no foul (technical foul exceptions), no discussion needed; I'll only address his second point (that there was contact, but it didn't warrant a foul).

I really don't want to go down the "contact above the shoulders" Point of Emphasis rabbit hole, so I'm ignoring all possibilities of intentional or flagrant fouls, but anytime a moving elbow, not just a touch, but an elbow moving fast enough that it can move, even slightly, a opponent's head, contacts a player in the head, a foul (of some type) should to be charged. I believe that "only" a player control foul was appropriate here. But certainly a subjective judgment call that JRutledge has a right to question.

Was there no contact, or was there contact that didn't warrant a foul? As to the former, the video shows (not clearly, it takes some careful study) there was contact. The later is professionally debatable if one choses to ignore the "contact above the shoulders" Point of Emphasis rabbit hole.

The official in the video, showing great hustle, jammed up against the coach, straight-lined on the ball, did the best she could. She missed the travel, but in my opinion, got the foul calls, and no calls, correct.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I really don't want to go down the "contact above the shoulders" Point of Emphasis rabbit hole, so I'm ignoring all possibilities of intentional or flagrant fouls, but anytime a moving elbow, not just a touch, but an elbow moving fast enough that it can move, even slightly, a opponent's head, contacts a player in the head, a foul (of some type) should to be charged. I believe that "only" a player control foul was appropriate here.

While the "specifics" (intentional or flagrant fouls) of this very old Point of Emphasis may (I'm not sure, there seems to be two schools of thought)) have faded over time, I don't believe that the purpose and intent of this Point of Emphasis has changed: to prevent concussions by charging fouls (of some type) for any above the shoulder contact by a moving elbow.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's difficult to professionally discuss and debate with JRutledge when he keeps moving the goalposts.

In one post he states that there is "no such contact" replying to the "moving elbow contacts a player in the head" contact reference that I had described in an earlier post. And he followups with that he sees "no clear contact to the face or head in any way". Pretty strong words, "in any way". Also, "I see nothing".

That's why I asked him to take another look at the video, pointing out certain things to look for to see the contact that he opined never occurred.

In another post he states that there is "no such contact that would warrant a foul", following up with "all contact is not a foul" (that I, in general, agree with), both of his statements implying that there was indeed contact, but that it wasn't a foul (which can professionally discussed and debated).

Since JRutledge can't seem to decide if there was "no" contact, or that there was contact but that it wasn't contact that would "warrant a foul" (I can't see an admission of no contact as entertaining a discussion of whether or not a foul was warranted, no contact always equals no foul (technical foul exceptions), no discussion needed; I'll only address his second point (that there was contact, but it didn't warrant a foul).

I really don't want to go down the "contact above the shoulders" Point of Emphasis rabbit hole, so I'm ignoring all possibilities of intentional or flagrant fouls, but anytime a moving elbow, not just a touch, but an elbow moving fast enough that it can move, even slightly, a opponent's head, contacts a player in the head, a foul (of some type) should to be charged. I believe that "only" a player control foul was appropriate here. But certainly a subjective judgment call that JRutledge has a right to question.

Was there no contact, or was there contact that didn't warrant a foul? As to the former, the video shows (not clearly, it takes some careful study) there was contact. The later is professionally debatable if one choses to ignore the "contact above the shoulders" Point of Emphasis rabbit hole.

The official in the video, showing great hustle, jammed up against the coach, straight-lined on the ball, did the best she could. She missed the travel, but in my opinion, got the foul calls, and no calls, correct.

I did not move a damn thing. I said I did not see anything from this angle that warranted a clear foul. And I was not the first to state that position. Now, this was your video, not mine. You posted this and wanted to debate the situation in which you wanted to support your position. I stated the angle was bad and cannot confirm or deny if the official on the play is wrong. Now if you would stop trying to debate yourself on every damn thread, you might realize when someone is taking a position. But as usually you go on and on responding to yourself you think that everyone is changing something when I have been consistent throughout. If I was a clinician at a camp and saw this play, I would ask the official, "What did you see?" Then let them explain why they made the call or not. Because I think it is very possible that the call was not because of contact to the neck area at all, there might have been contact with the torso which caused displacement. Very hard to tell from this angle. But how can we tell that if we do not have a good angle or if the official did not tell us why they made this call?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I said I did not see anything from this angle that warranted a clear foul.

Yes you did, a logical comment that is worth exploring.

But in earlier posts you said something different, commenting that there was "no" contact "in any way".

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... no such contact .. no clear contact to the face or head in any way ... I see nothing ...

Big differences between no contact, incidental contact contact that doesn't warrant a foul, and illegal contact that does warrant a foul.

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... no such contact .. no clear contact to the face or head in any way ... I see nothing ...

Words matter.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Yes you did, a logical comment that is worth exploring.

But in earlier posts you said something different, commenting that there was "no" contact "in any way".



Big differences between no contact, incidental contact contact that doesn't warrant a foul, and illegal contact that does warrant a foul.

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.

Once again, you are mostly arguing with yourself. I do not see anything in the video that confirms or denies any foul either way. Again this is coming from a person that only works 2 person and never worked the playoffs, trying to tell me what should or should not be called on a video he was not on or did not speak to the official at hand. And again Rule 4-27 did not magically go away. And there is no rule that supports all contact with the neck and head area that says we must call those fouls. No rule whatsoever. Not a single one. Even the POE did not address all the kinds of contact that every other level feels is incidental. So again I stand by what I stated because this is not a very good video to evaluate if the official was in good position at the time of contact. Honestly, it looks like that official saw the extension and called something but we cannot tell if that contact displaced the opponent (which the rules kind of require) or put them at a disadvantage in any way. Again, the angle is horrible. I do not see separation (angle again) created by the so-called contact that I would warrant a foul. Even the attempt of a push-off is not a foul. See these all the time and pass because the defender is still in place to defend the ball handler.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So again I stand by what I stated ...

So you stand by when you stated that there was no neck/arm contact at all?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... no such contact .. no clear contact to the face or head in any way ... I see nothing ...

I'm not arguing with you about whether, of not, the contact warrants a foul call, or not, that's a subjective judgment that is definitely up to interpretation, with various logical opinions.

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... no such contact .. no clear contact to the face or head in any way ... I see nothing ...

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Good for discussion because you can examine things like positioning, angles, philosophy and mechanics, with multiple different positions.

Agree. That's why I've been posting these IAABO Make The Call Videos, even though few Forum members are IAABO members. Non-IAABO Forum members can just ignore the followup IAABO Play Commentary and Correct Answer, or are certainly welcome to criticize such. I've been critical or some of the IAABO Play Commentaries and Correct Answers, and I'm a proud, loyal IAABO member.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... there is no rule that supports all contact with the neck and head area that says we must call those fouls. No rule whatsoever. Not a single one.

Totally agree 100%.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Even the POE did not address all the kinds of contact ...

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... I think it is very possible that the call was not because of contact to the neck area at all, there might have been contact with the torso which caused displacement ... how can we tell that if we do not have a good angle or if the official did not tell us why they made this call?

We don't have to explain why the official made her call.

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.