Fun With Contact …

[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If so, how long ago did the people you work high school for decide that the infamous 2012-13 POE was no longer valid, and for what reason?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?

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?).

[JRutledge]

Billy,

You work for an organization that tells you everything to do. It does not work that way where I live. So maybe this is hard for you to understand because it is a larger organization than a state organization that tries to define things for multiple areas and states. I do not get assigned by any one group that decides my entire fate as an official from the licensing to the post-season. Our state addresses things they think need to be defined and if they don't, then it is not relevant to these kinds of discussions. Often training is local and much smaller scale.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You work for an organization that tells you everything to do. It does not work that way where I live. So maybe this is hard for you to understand because it is a larger organization than a state organization that tries to define things for multiple areas and states. I do not get assigned by any one group that decides my entire fate as an official from the licensing to the post-season ... Often training is local and much smaller scale.

Things that I've learned as a fifteen year member of this Forum, that I really didn't know in my first twenty-five years as a non-Forum basketball official here in 100% IAABO Connecticut (officiating nowhere else, not even with a different IAABO local board within Connecticut):

There are a gigantic number of high school basketball officials that have absolutely nothing to do with IAABO.

Not all states have a single, monopoly-type organization (of any type of umbrella organization) that recruits, trains, tests, evaluates, certifies, and assigns, high school basketball officials. Many states have multiple such organizations.

Different doesn't always mean better, or worse, just different.

There's a basketball version of all politics is local.

There's a basketball version of when in Rome do as Romans do.

Despite the fact that it's been around for a very long time, and that it pretty much controls almost all (as a monopoly) interscholastic basketball rules, interpretations, and often mechanics, nationwide, don't expect the NFHS to be anywhere near perfect.

Also: Unlike the NFHS, and state interscholastic sports governing bodies, IAABO only deals exclusively with a single sport, basketball, only basketball, and nothing but basketball; and is the oldest umbrella organization in the country that trains high school basketball officials, with 15,000 high school basketball officials in several states. However, IAABO is now branching out (outside of the NFHS) to include FIBA (Canada), NCAA men's basketball, and NCAA women's basketball, a diversification strategy that I fear will dilute the product of what IAABO has always done best, training high school basketball officials.

[BillyMac]

Looking up a completely different topic, I came across this gem from October, 2013:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... how will rookies learn these swinging elbow fouls, of various degrees, once the Point of Emphasis disappears into the mist?

Can I call them?

Anybody want some stock tips?

Buy low, sell high.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... the options (IAABO) 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 (IAABO) did not feel that it rose to any such level.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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) Ill get back to everybody once I get a reply.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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". 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?).

From the IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters:

Thank you for contacting us regarding rulings on contact above the shoulders. You make a great point regarding current rules, references, and mechanics that are no longer addressed in current publications. We share your concerns, specifically and in general. During our 3-day Zoom NFHS Rules Committee meeting last week we discussed current rules that reference contact above the shoulders, as well as Case Book plays and the 2012-13 POE and PowerPoint from the NFHS. We believe that for the 2021-22 season there may be some specific information added that will help clarify the position of the NFHS regarding contact above the shoulders.

In general, the Committee recognizes the concern with regard to the number, nature, and validity of interpretations, manual references, and procedures with regard to things such as POE that have disappeared from current and recent publications. In general, the NFHS agreed that your concern with disappearing information is certainly valid and that one of their charges for upcoming meetings will be to address concerns such as yours. I apologize for not specifically answering your questions but hope this provides some degree of satisfaction regarding contact above the above the shoulders and information that should not disappear.

No specifics, but it sounds like that we may hear something about contact above the above the shoulders, possibly from the NFHS, for the 2021-22 season.

While I trust IAABO, I don't trust the NFHS, so I'm not holding my breath.

I did reply to their reply with a followup question regarding 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). I specifically asked about the vanished "player on the floor" casebook interpretation, and the "estimated time" one-and-done annual interpretation, but I also asked about vanishing/disappearing interpretations in general. I'll let everyone know if and when I get a reply.

[JRutledge]

Funny you could have sent this email months ago instead of trying to argue what the ruling should have been. But as stated they had no clarity at all based on the response and why I stated no one is holding onto some interpretation that hardly clarified anything from 2012-2013, which is almost 10 years ago now. There is no language that says when contact takes place it should be ruled more than a common foul and nothing that says when contact is either incidental or ignored based on the status of the ball or situation.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Funny you could have sent this email months ago instead of trying to argue what the ruling should have been.

While my recent ruling (player control foul) had absolutely nothing to do with the eight year old infamous Point of Emphasis, JRutledge and I discussing it got my curiosity piqued.

IAABO used the 2012-13 Point of Emphasis as a citation in a Make The Call Video Play Commentary posted on January 20, 2021. Yet, as keenly pointed out by JRutledge, IAABO didn't use the same 2012-13 Point of Emphasis citation in the Make The Call Video Play Commentary in this thread (maybe thinking the call was based on shoulder to torso body contact).

What changed in three months?

That's what put me over the top, wanting some answers.

Regarding IAABO's reply to my email.

Worst that can happen? Nothing.

Little bit better? Response from only IAABO, either way, valid, or invalid.

Best outcome? Response from the NFHS, either way, valid, or invalid.

Like I said, I'm not holding my breath.

At least I tried to get some closure.

Still waiting for IAABO's reply to vanishing/disappearing interpretations.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

IAABO used the 2012-13 Point of Emphasis as a citation in a Make The Call Video Play Commentary posted on January 20, 2021. Yet, as keenly pointed out by JRutledge, IAABO didn't use the same 2012-13 Point of Emphasis citation in the Make The Call Video Play Commentary in this thread (maybe thinking the call was based on shoulder to torso body contact).

IAABO has put out videos for the past 12 seasons that they sell through NASO and I cannot think of any video at this time that showed a situation where contact above the shoulders was ruled as an intentional or flagrant in any of their presentations. I have all of these copies and one of the things I think IAABO does really well and nothing mentioned of note that I can remember or have researched suggests that they are using or emphasizing the POE from 12-13. And I have been looking hard for some references. And they will address everything from the not so significant to the very significant.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

IAABO used the 2012-13 Point of Emphasis as a citation in a Make The Call Video Play Commentary posted on January 20, 2021. Yet, as keenly pointed out by JRutledge, IAABO didn't use the same 2012-13 Point of Emphasis citation in the Make The Call Video Play Commentary in this thread (maybe thinking the call was based on shoulder to torso body contact). What changed in three months?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... I cannot think of any video at this time that showed a situation where contact above the shoulders was ruled as an intentional or flagrant in any of their presentations ... or have researched suggests that they are using or emphasizing the POE from 12-13. And I have been looking hard for some references.

Not hard enough.

Check out this IAABO video and IAABO commentary (below) originally posted on the Forum Wednesday, January 20, 2021, 12:23 p.m., thread title: "Fun With Elbows ...".

Originally from the IAABO "members only" website RefQuest Plus.

Not only was it originally posted on the Forum three months ago, it was also reposted within this thread, yesterday at 5:33 p.m., post #48, post title: "No Flagrant Or Intentional Mentioned ..."; and mentioned again in this thread, today, 10:33 a.m., post #64, post title "Gang Of Flour Reply" ...

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...2FIE%2Bg%3D%3D

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)

But again, it's only an IAABO interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I did reply to their reply with a followup question regarding 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). I specifically asked about the vanished "player on the floor" casebook interpretation, and the "estimated time" one-and-done annual interpretation, but I also asked about vanishing/disappearing interpretations in general. I'll let everyone know if and when I get a reply.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Still waiting for IAABO's reply to vanishing/disappearing interpretations.

From IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters:

We’ve certainly discussed the points you bring.

We (co-coordinators) all believe that it’s fair & reasonable to share your questions and concerns with the NFHS, to 1) get an answer and 2) possibly spur action on cataloging all interpretations, electronically for longevity sake.

Personally, pending different guidance from the NFHS, I feel, like you, that past interpretations are still in effect even if they’re not in the “current” casebook, unless replaced or changed. And as you noted, that makes the teaching of a rule dependent on 1) someone’s historical knowledge and 2) someone else “believing” that historical knowledge!

Thanks for your keen rules knowledge and historical perspective!

At their suggestion, I've forwarded my "old interpretation" concerns to Theresia D. Wynns, Editor, NFHS Publications, National Federation of State High School Associations:

Ms. Wynns,

IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters suggested that I forward this email to you regarding questions about old interpretations and annual interpretations because you would be in the best position to accurately answer them.

Are old interpretations (casebook or annual), not in the current NFHS casebook, still fully valid as long as newer relevant rule changes and/or newer relevant interpretations haven’t invalidated such old interpretations?

Shouldn’t deleted interpretations be announced in some manner, possibly announced with a rationale for the deletion?

I included some specific examples, the "player on the floor" casebook interpretation, and the "estimated time" one-and-done annual interpretation.

I'll let everyone know if and when I get a reply.

[BillyMac]

From another IAABO Co-Coordinator of Interpreters:

I will send an email request to the NFHS on Monday morning, asking for guidance with regard to the status and relevance of Case Book plays, interpretations, and POE that no longer appear in print. I will ask if there might be some document that exists or could be created that would enable members (or at least state interpreters) to review updated information. As soon as I hear back from the NFHS I will let you know. Thanks again, great points & perspective!