Fun With Contact …

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

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)

Was any of this in the videos put out in their video series with NASO? Nope. I looked and damn near every play, where they give commentary and tell you what needs to be called and philosophy shared. And this is not a play I am would suggest would not be intentional, just stating there are not many examples of plays these organizations have used to clarify multiple kinds of situations. This was a swing through that hit a player in the face, this is not a rebounding play where players might make contact bringing down the ball with an opponent under them or a play going to the basket where the shooting motion and a non-legal defender is hit with a normal motion of a shooter. This is a PC foul at best but as stated, other levels have directly addressed these situations and given clarity as to what to consider. But again not a single video I could find in the 12 volumes (and I am still looking) addressed specific contact above the shoulders and there were plays where contact was much more obvious and Tom Lopes addressed other things like mechanics or coverage in those plays that I could find at this stage.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I looked and damn near every play ...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Off the hook.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... give commentary and tell you what needs to be called and philosophy shared ...

The video in question clearly mentions the infamous 2012-13 Point of Emphasis philosophy (and actually names it twice) in the commentary.

I can't remember what I ate for breakfast this morning, and while probably still quite young, JRutledge is now fifteen years older than when I first met him online, so I can't expect him to remember everything that was posted in our lengthy and boring marathon discussion and debate yesterday.

Am I right Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.? We'll probably have to wait until after his early afternoon nap for a response. His lovely wife uses a mirror to check to see if he's breathing while he's napping. And she keeps the life insurance policy in the top drawer of the desk for easy access.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The video in question clearly mentions the infamous 2012-13 Point of Emphasis philosophy (and actually names it twice) in the commentary.

I can't remember what I ate for breakfast this morning, and while probably still quite young, JRutledge is now fifteen years older than when I first met him online, so I can't expect him to remember everything that was posted in our lengthy and boring marathon discussion and debate yesterday.

If you actually read what I said, I was not talking about the video you posted from a website. I am referencing their series with NASO "You Make the Ruling" that people, not members can buy that was a DVD collection until this year they provided a zip drive file (and steaming was an option as well through NASO). They created 12 volumes so far of this series starting in 2009-2010. The video that you showed is not part of that series, neither are the videos you have posted here. I am not going on pure memory, I am going by actually looking up references to plays that would involve elbow contact. I actually looked at some plays that were involving head contact that was after to POE we are discussing in 12-13 took place. There is a post-play on Volume 5 that was released for the 2013-2014 season, had play #24 where a post-play action was between an offensive and defensive player and the offensive player literally has this arm up in the head area of the defender, and a foul was called by the lead official on the defender. No reference to the contact above the shoulders was even mentioned, but the way the officials made the call and left the scene. I am not going by memory, I literally watched this play this morning looking for things that might spark comment from Tom Lopes as to what might be considered more than a common foul. Usually, where there are other things to consider, they would mention so in the commentary by Tom Lopes and stated clearly what should be considered. For example on a block-charge play, they might point out that there was a travel before or whether there was a handcheck not called, but let us focus only on the block-charge portion of the play. I literally have clipped every single play from this series and listen to all the situations and circumstances, because I use many of the videos for training purposes in presentations and for classes. So this is not simply memory, this me looking for examples to support your hypothesis. I cannot as of yet find any such reference in their very specific "You make the Ruling" series. I am not an IAABO member so I have no idea what they post on RefQuest. I am a member of the Indiana Association and they have a RefQuest account and have not put out any such videos with those references either.

I am only having this conversation because I want to highlight the lack of information that was provided that people like yourself try to tell us what has to be considered. There are not many references and one video from an organization we do not belong is not the standard of how to rule on these situations. That is the issue I have. And since you came at me trying to tell me what we had to consider and the video that you posted considered no such reference in their answers, that tells me that IAABO did not seem to think that you should call anything but a PC foul at best on the ball handler. Your second video is not what we were talking about.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you actually read what I said, I was not talking about the video you posted from a website.

I knew exactly what you were talking about all along (the NASO IAABO DVD series) from the get go. Our local interpreter uses them all the time.

I was just (incorrectly) afraid that you missed my mention of the IAABO Make The Call Video Play Commentary I posted on January 20, 2021.

An IAABO Make The Call Video Play Commentary that shows that IAABO considers the old, infamous Point of Emphasis alive and well.

Yeah, not well, just alive, and just barely alive at that. Get out the mirror.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not an IAABO member so I have no idea what they post on RefQuest.

Few Forum members are, which is why I keep posting the IAABO Make the Call Videos and Play Commentaries, for the greater good of the cause.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... the video that you posted considered no such reference in their answers, that tells me that IAABO did not seem to think that you should call anything but a PC foul at best on the ball handler ...

I noted that at about the same time as you keenly observed the same. And I agreed with you regarding the inconsistency between the two videos. Took me a while to get up the confidence to approach the "Gang of Four" (even though I know that they're just regular guys hiding behind the curtain) but the inconsistency of the two videos finally got my curiosity going enough (and to finally get some closure) to send the email.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... came at me trying to tell me what we had to consider

It's been months, possibly years, since I've seriously tried to convince anybody else to use this old infamous Point of Emphasis as a 100% rock solid valid citation for above the shoulder contact. Knowing how controversial this issue is, with many Forum members not accepting the POE as still being valid, I didn't even use this as a citation in this thread, I ruled a player control foul when (based on what I observed) the Point of Emphasis required (at minimum) an intentional foul.

On a few past occasions here on the Forum I've even played Devil's Advocate and questioned if the POE was still valid, especially in regard to inexperienced officials.

I can see validity in both sides of the issue, and I can do pretty good job arguing for either side of the issue.

On one hand, we have an eight year old NFHS Contact Above The Shoulders Point Of Emphasis that hasn't been updated recently, that never made its way into the rulebook, casebook, or an annual interpretation, and that no officials with less than eight years of experience may even know about.

On the other hand, there have been no rule changes, casebook play changes, annual interpretations, or new Points of Emphasis that invalidate this NFHS 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Point Of Emphasis.

At this point, before I hear anything from IAABO, or the NFHS, regarding any closure of this issue, I will (continue) to use the POE as simply a guideline, not as an automatic "rule" to upgrade fouls that involve elbows and above the shoulder contact. I will use the POE, intent and purpose, and my forty years of experience, to make these type of calls. The POE just makes me pause and think for a second about an upgrade, I no longer treat it as an automatic "must do". Just because we can upgrade to intentional fouls or flagrant fouls doesn't necessarily mean that we have to. Been doing it that way for several years now in real games anyway.

Just hope that I don't have to deal with an IAABO written exam questions regarding this issue, with answers that I have to bet my house on, before we get any further guidance from IAABO, or the NFHS. That would not sit well with my OCD anxiety producing mental health, even while on my medications.

[JRutledge]

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Great video. Thanks JRutledge.

My high school opinion, using the old infamous POE as only a guideline, intent and purpose of the POE, and my forty years of experience, Blue #23 did push White #33 (as called), but it only came after White #33 fouled Blue #23 (not called). Official left the site of the foul too quickly, without even signaling who fouled (I had to wait to see who got the throwin before I discovering who fouled). Good thing his partners kept tensions from escalating (there was a slightly tense dead ball push by Blue #23).

Now the hard part. Again high school, and again no automatics, only guidelines, guidelines that make me pause and think for a second about upgrades. So what am I thinking during that pause? Not the "classic" swinging elbow strike to the head. More of a hold of the back/shoulder/head area. But it was still contact that ended up including the head. Game's getting rougher than I'd like it to be? Send a message, it's excessive contact, going with intentional foul. Game going smoothly? I'm going common foul (maybe talking to combatants).

Now, again high school, but it's 2012-13? Got some automatics. No swinging excessively (can't be flagrant), but some movement. Contact with head, though not "classic". Let's discourage any contact to the head in this age of concussions, have to go intentional (not flagrant), it's excessive contact, no other choice offered by the NFHS POE. Handcuffed by the POE.

If the video and the play commentary is based on NCAA rules and interpretations, I have no comment, to do so would only make a fool of me. NCAA is not my bag (apologies to James Brown).

How did I do? Do I get to keep my varsity high school certification? Or I'm a relegated to sixth grade girls recreation leagues?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If the video and the play commentary is based on NCAA rules and interpretations, I have no comment, to do so would only make a fool of me. NCAA is not my bag (apologies to James Brown).

This is a high school game and part of the DVD series two years after the POE you keep referencing. I did not take out any commentary but I did cut the video down. This was clearly about what we do at the NF level and for the record, NCAA has other language for these kinds of plays as to what is considered a foul. NCAA would have wanted a foul by white before it even got to the other side of the lane for an illegal ward-off.

Peace