Fun With Contact …

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... 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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

[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

Even the POE did not address all the kinds of contact that every other level feels is incidental.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... 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) ... 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 ... 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?

Never got a reply to this above.