Fun With Contact …

[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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is a high school game and part of the DVD series two years after the POE you keep referencing.

Wow. Big kids. I just assumed that Howard and Samford (thought they were both HBC's) were colleges playing a neutral site game in Delaware.

Years ago we used to have HBC's from the South (Virginia State University and Hampton University) come up here to Connecticut to play neutral site games, at least once a year. Big crowds. Great basketball. Not sure which NCAA division.

So how bad were my calls in this high school game?

Too bad the video didn't show a classic swinging elbow (excessive, or not) striking the head contact. I'd like to see that in a high school, from eight years ago, or from a more recent game.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Wow. Big kids. I just assumed that Howard and Sanford (thought they were both HBC's) were colleges playing a neutral site game in Delaware.

Years ago we used to have HBC's from the Southeast come up here to Connecticut to play neutral site games, at least once a year. Big crowds. Great basketball. Not sure which NCAA division.

So how bad were my calls in this high school game?

Too bad the video didn't show a classic swinging elbow (excessive, or not) striking the head contact. I'd like to see that in a high school, from eight years ago, or from a more recent game.

What are HBC's?

And you said you knew what I was referring to and you think this is a college game? Does IAABO put out content specifically for college?

Peace