Fun With Contact …

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Yes I do not see any contact from that angle and even if there was it does not mean something special needs to be called.

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

[JRutledge]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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. 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?

We both know that all contact is not a foul. We both know that severe contact may not be a foul (legal blind screen).

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:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... 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 ...

However:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This is a player control foul. Ball handler Black #10 illegally pushed White #1 with her left arm.

Never did I invoke the 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Point Of Emphasis as a rationale for my call, in fact, I actually shied away from it due to it's controversial status.

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.

[BillyMac]

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%.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes I do not see any contact from that angle ...

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?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... even if there was it does not mean something special needs to be called.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

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"

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[BillyMac]

.. By me, or by IAABO.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... 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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... 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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... 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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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