Fun With Contact …

[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.

[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!