Fun With Contact …

[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%.