Fun With Contact …
 

IAABO Make The Call Video

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...1PezsHSw%3D%3D

Was this properly ruled a player control foul? Did the offensive player push off the defender? Did the official have a good angle to view this play? Did the ruling official use an accurate site of foul signaling?

Three choices: This is a player control foul. This is a blocking foul. This is incidental contact.

My comment: This is a player control foul. Ball handler Black #10 illegally pushed White #1 with her left arm. Official gave the team control foul signal instead of the player control foul signal. Also, Black #10 traveled before the contact.

Early Returns ...
 

Early results from IAABO members who have commented are all over the place. Lots of player control fouls and incidental contact, with a few blocking fouls added for flavor.

I don't see how that's possible.

Black And White And Red All Over ...
 

White #1 traveled five minutes previous to the situation shown on the video.

Fixed it. Thanks.

Got a call (or a no call)?

Impossible to tell from the camera angle. The official did a good job of anticipating the long throw-in and moving to be in position and was looking between the players.

Good Hustle ...
 

Agree. Good hustle. Through no fault of her own, if she hadn't gotten jammed between the two players and the coach and his bench she may have had a wider, more open look to see the travel. At one point she had to take a step around the coach (who was legally in his coaching box).

Anybody From Minnesota ???
 

There's a giant M painted on the wall, and Redhawks is painted on the floor.

The black jerseys appear to say Minnehaha Redhawks.

The white jerseys say Como (Como Park Cougars).

Como Park is a public high school.

Minnehaha is a private Christian high school, but appears to compete against public high schools, and participates in the Minnesota state tournament.

Here in Connecticut private prep schools (some with post gradate programs), and Christian prep schools, only compete against each other, have their own post season tournaments, and by custom, wear dark uniforms at home, white on the road.

Connecticut Catholic high schools compete against public high schools, participate the Connecticut state tournament, and wear white at home, dark on the road, as do all public high schools.

What's the story with the Minnehaha Redhawks wearing black jerseys on their home court?

Maybe it's a tournament and they are the "visitors." Maybe MN has the home team wear dark. Maybe MN has a rule "home team wears white unless the teams agree differently." Maybe MN DGAF.

Odd ...
 

I figured it was something like that, just found it odd, and wanted it confirmed.

As I already stated, we have a few of our own odd uniform customs for private prep schools here in Connecticut.

That why "private school" popped into my head first before I did deep dive.

Always Listen To bob ...
 

Bingo.

Minnesota State High School League Basketball Rule Modifications

Uniforms: The home team shall wear dark-colored uniforms and the visiting team white uniforms.

My first deep dive wasn't deep enough.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.K...=0&w=256&h=171

You noticed the reversal of the uniform colors, but not 11:00 on the clock?

I’ll save you the trouble of asking. MN plays 18 minute halves for HS games.

The North Star State ...
 

Noticed it (it was the scoreboard that first got my attention directed to home team jersey color), but already knew that some states play games in halves.

Sixteen minutes for Minnesota subvarsity games.

Also restricted area (mandatory above grade nine, optional grade nine), some shot clocks (necessary equipment obviously needed and team agreement), running clock mercy rule (35 points last "quarter" of game), 14 foot coaching box, and apparel (wristbands, headbands, arm/knee sleeves, knee pads, compression shorts, tights) restricted to only solid black or white (I guess no jersey color, or beige allowed).

Now that's a deep Marianas Trench dive.

Got a call (or a no call)?

Too Much Time on 'Your' Hands
 

BillyMac, you have Waaaay too much time
As for the video. I cannot confirm nor deny the contact. Bad angle.
Not sure if those are approved signals for the State of Minnesota, but the official looks like she is about to Break Dance.

Hijacked ...
 

Why is ilyazhito posting under BillyMac's username?

Working In The Back Forty ...
 

Agree. Things are starting to get busy outside. Lawn needs to be mowed and edged. Sugar Snap Peas are already in the ground. Cherry Tomatoes, Marigolds, Nasturtium, and Alyssum are still under the grow lights in my basement, but should be ready to go in the ground and containers in a few weeks. Looking to buy a new pullet to add to my flock of backyard hens. Kayak group starts group paddles this weekend. I'll be too busy to multiple post each day, but should still have enough time to post IAABO Make The Call Videos as they are published.

Hopefully the NFHS will confirm and emphasize one single player control foul signal in a few weeks. Maybe it won't help, but it can't hurt. My little corner of Connecticut is like the Wild Wild West when it comes to player control foul signals.

I see nothing that really looks like a PC foul or can tell how much displacement there was. The angle they picked was not conducive for supporting this foul.

Peace

1. Clear travel upon catching the ball.
2. Likely illegal contact by the defender, but I can understand letting it go.
3. However, if one is going to pass on the contact by the defender, it is harsh to not allow the offensive player to push back. Coming up with a PC here is not ideal.

I didn't see it initially, but the offensive player's arm/elbow was under the defenders chin then upside her head. Hard to ignore that one....it was escalating it to the next level.

There is no way for the official to see the ball and be able to rule a travel or not. I called a blind travel once in a college game only to have the video show that the player did not have possession of the ball.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Blind Travel ...
 

Even though I pointed out the travel in my initial comment (for educational purposes, not to criticize the official), she gets a pass from me on missing the travel.

Not only was she jammed up against the coach, but she was also straight-lined by ball handler in such a way that the official doesn't get a good look at the initial possession of the ball, as Raymond commented.

Nevadaref probably meant "clear" from the video viewer's angle. That's how I called the travel, and it was quite clear to me, but not clear from the viewpoint of the official.

Simple Player Control Foul ...
 

That was the player control foul I wanted called, and I would prefer to not go down the "contact above the shoulders" rabbit hole.

Watch White #1's head snap back after being elbowed, there's your displacement.

OK, "snap" is hyperbole, more of a "move" back.

Anytime a moving elbow contacts a player in the head, a foul (of some type) should to be charged.

Of course, a player moving toward and contacting a stationary elbow is another story for another time.

At the 40 second mark of the video, the offensive player's arm is clearly fully extended to push off the defender. If it was just the chicken wing as the coach is suggesting then I could see a no call.

I see no such contact or even snap back as you stated. I see nothing because the angle shows nothing clear. If we had the angle of the court that was first shown maybe then you are right but this angle was not an angle I would make such a call. So we are guessing at this point. I see no clear contact to the face or head in any way either based on this angle, so that was not what I was referencing.

Peace

And that is why the contact that the defender caused from behind and while sticking her arm into the mix warranted a whistle first. I’ve never been comfortable calling the second foul which is in response to contact I just allowed.
It feels unjust.

Head Tilts Back ...
 

Check out 11, 32, and 39 second mark. Ball handler's left arm/elbow, as it moves upward, contacts defender's left neck, cheek, and face (in that order). Ball handler's pony tail partly obscures the contact, but one can still see the contact in small unobscured space between the arm/elbow/neck/cheek/face on the left and the pony tail on the right. Defender's head "tilts" (I exaggerated by using the word "snap") up and back as a result of said upper movement contact to her neck, cheek, and face.

Anytime a moving elbow contacts a player in the head, a foul (of some type) should to be charged.

I do not know why you keep thinking that I have not watched this video several times. I watch a lot more video than most people and I see nothing that stands out that states that there was such contact that would warrant a foul. Again, it is about the angle. I would not make that call from the endline if I was there, so why would I say this is what she saw or why she made the call? Again, all contact is not a foul. This contact that you say is there does not clearly move the player from the angle we have and unless you just want to look like a girl's official, call that. Because nothing I saw is clear as to what if any contact took place. Also, was there contact before by the defender? I cannot tell, which would influence what I call.

Then you are going to call a lot of BS that did nothing to either player.

Peace

Three Contacts Passed On Don't Necessarily Make A Right ...
 

I see no illegal body contact by the defender, she stops on a dime just short of contact and doesn't move forward, all the incidental body contact is initiated by the pivoting (once she finally decides on a pivot foot) ball handler. But this is a subjective judgment call that Nevadaref has a right to question.

Nevadaref is correct in that the defender complicates things by adding her right arm into the mix, but I see no illegal arm contact. Again, this is a subjective judgment call that Nevadaref has a right to question.

Allowing incidental body contact, or allowing arm contact not putting the ball handler at a disadvantage, shouldn't subsequently be used as a rationale by an official to automatically pass (as just) on a player who responds to one, or two, slight incidental contacts with a subsequent contact to the head (it wasn't a knockout punch, but it wasn't slight either).

Three contacts passed on don't necessarily make a right. Anytime a moving elbow, not just a touch, but an elbow moving fast enough that it can move, even slightly, a opponent's head, contacts a player in the head, a foul (not going down the "contact above the shoulders" Point of Emphasis rabbit hole, I believe that "only" a player control foul was appropriate here) should to be charged. Also another subjective judgment call that Nevadaref has a right to question.

Moving The Goalposts Again ...
 

It's difficult to professionally discuss and debate with JRutledge when he keeps moving the goalposts.

In one post he states that there is "no such contact" replying to the "moving elbow contacts a player in the head" contact reference that I had described in an earlier post. And he followups with that he sees "no clear contact to the face or head in any way". Pretty strong words, "in any way". Also, "I see nothing".

That's why I asked him to take another look at the video, pointing out certain things to look for to see the contact that he opined never occurred.

In another post he states that there is "no such contact that would warrant a foul", following up with "all contact is not a foul" (that I, in general, agree with), both of his statements implying that there was indeed contact, but that it wasn't a foul (which can professionally discussed and debated).

Since JRutledge can't seem to decide if there was "no" contact, or that there was contact but that it wasn't contact that would "warrant a foul" (I can't see an admission of no contact as entertaining a discussion of whether or not a foul was warranted, no contact always equals no foul (technical foul exceptions), no discussion needed; I'll only address his second point (that there was contact, but it didn't warrant a foul).

I really don't want to go down the "contact above the shoulders" Point of Emphasis rabbit hole, so I'm ignoring all possibilities of intentional or flagrant fouls, but anytime a moving elbow, not just a touch, but an elbow moving fast enough that it can move, even slightly, a opponent's head, contacts a player in the head, a foul (of some type) should to be charged. I believe that "only" a player control foul was appropriate here. But certainly a subjective judgment call that JRutledge has a right to question.

Was there no contact, or was there contact that didn't warrant a foul? As to the former, the video shows (not clearly, it takes some careful study) there was contact. The later is professionally debatable if one choses to ignore the "contact above the shoulders" Point of Emphasis rabbit hole.

The official in the video, showing great hustle, jammed up against the coach, straight-lined on the ball, did the best she could. She missed the travel, but in my opinion, got the foul calls, and no calls, correct.

This angle I don't see anything the defender does illegal.

I can clearly see the offensive player's arm unnaturally in the defender's head and neck region with contact just before the official blows her whistle.

I'll trust her angle and judgment in regards to that call.

Very first lesson I ever learned in my very first basketball camp 19 years ago was to call fouls when there is contact to the head. It has always stuck with me. The person who ran that little local high school camp is now the supervisor for about 9 or 10 Men's D1 conferences and his philosophies kind of permeate in this region of the country down to the D3 level.

Good Judgment ...
 

Agree.

Above The Shoulder Contact ...
 

While the "specifics" (intentional or flagrant fouls) of this very old Point of Emphasis may (I'm not sure, there seems to be two schools of thought)) have faded over time, I don't believe that the purpose and intent of this Point of Emphasis has changed: to prevent concussions by charging fouls (of some type) for any above the shoulder contact by a moving elbow.

I did not move a damn thing. I said I did not see anything from this angle that warranted a clear foul. And I was not the first to state that position. Now, this was your video, not mine. You posted this and wanted to debate the situation in which you wanted to support your position. I stated the angle was bad and cannot confirm or deny if the official on the play is wrong. Now if you would stop trying to debate yourself on every damn thread, you might realize when someone is taking a position. But as usually you go on and on responding to yourself you think that everyone is changing something when I have been consistent throughout. If I was a clinician at a camp and saw this play, I would ask the official, "What did you see?" Then let them explain why they made the call or not. Because I think it is very possible that the call was not because of contact to the neck area at all, there might have been contact with the torso which caused displacement. Very hard to tell from this angle. But how can we tell that if we do not have a good angle or if the official did not tell us why they made this call?

Peace

No Contact ???
 

Yes you did, a logical comment that is worth exploring.

But in earlier posts you said something different, commenting that there was "no" contact "in any way".

Big differences between no contact, incidental contact contact that doesn't warrant a foul, and illegal contact that does warrant a foul.

If there was some contact (as some of JRutledge's later posts implied), as shown in the video with some thoughtful study, we can move on to discussing if it was incidental contact contact that doesn't warrant a foul, or illegal contact that does warrant a foul, subjective judgment calls that are always worth discussing and debating in an educational manner. But if one believes that there wasn't any contact (as in JRutledge's early post), one can't discuss and debate illegal/incidental.

One (not necessarily JRutledge) can't say "if there was contact" and speculate about illegal/incidental, because one didn't see the contact, so how can one form a logical opinion regarding the legality of contact that one never observed.

Words matter.

You Make The Call ...
 

We don't have to explain why the official made her call.

Nor do we have to explain something that we can't see in the video due to our viewing angle.

We could view the video, as presented, make a call, or a no call, and explain why we made the call, or no call (not why she made the call).

In the video, as presented, is there contact with the neck area of the defender?

If so, in the video, as presented, is this incidental contact, not warranting a foul?

Or, in the video, as presented, is this contact illegal, warranting a foul?

If one can't see any contact, or doesn't see any contact, just state it, and move on. No contact means no foul. No need to discuss illegal/incidental. No contract. It's just that simple as a stand alone statement.

Is there anything else going on that's worth mentioning (travel, defender contact not warranting a foul, defender contact warranting a foul, other contact by the ball handler not warranting a foul, other contact by the ball handler warranting a foul)?

JRutledge's knowledge and experience is way too valuable to be dismissed, or ignored. He's worth listening to. I just wish that he was more careful with his wording.

Words matter.

Agree.

Contact To The Head ...
 

Sounds a little like the NFHS 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Point Of Emphasis. While I personally believe that the specifics (common/intentional/flagrant, moving/excessive moving) may still be valid, I can understand why others wouldn't believe such (how are inexperienced officials to know). But I strongly believe that the intent and purpose of the eight year old Point Of Emphasis is still valid: to prevent concussions by charging fouls (of some type) for any above the shoulder contact by a moving elbow.

Once again, you are mostly arguing with yourself. I do not see anything in the video that confirms or denies any foul either way. Again this is coming from a person that only works 2 person and never worked the playoffs, trying to tell me what should or should not be called on a video he was not on or did not speak to the official at hand. And again Rule 4-27 did not magically go away. And there is no rule that supports all contact with the neck and head area that says we must call those fouls. No rule whatsoever. Not a single one. Even the POE did not address all the kinds of contact that every other level feels is incidental. So again I stand by what I stated because this is not a very good video to evaluate if the official was in good position at the time of contact. Honestly, it looks like that official saw the extension and called something but we cannot tell if that contact displaced the opponent (which the rules kind of require) or put them at a disadvantage in any way. Again, the angle is horrible. I do not see separation (angle again) created by the so-called contact that I would warrant a foul. Even the attempt of a push-off is not a foul. See these all the time and pass because the defender is still in place to defend the ball handler.

Either way, it does not matter, just giving a perspective on what I saw. Not the authority or the final word. I do not work for IAABO and definitely not hanging on every word they state about this play. Good for discussion because you can examine things like positioning, angles, philosophy and mechanics, with multiple different positions.

Peace

Stand By No Such Contact ...
 

So you stand by when you stated that there was no neck/arm contact at all?

I'm not arguing with you about whether, of not, the contact warrants a foul call, or not, that's a subjective judgment that is definitely up to interpretation, with various logical opinions.

I'm saying to you that in order for you to judge the contact to be illegal or incidental, you first have to acknowledge that some type of neck/arm contact actually did occur, and that you've actually observed the neck/arm contact in the video, something that you never really confirmed in a definite manner.

For example: JRutledge: Although I first believed that no such neck/arm contact occurred, and that there was no contact to the face or head in any way, in fact I believed that I saw nothing, and after BillyMac pointed out exactly where I could observe the arm/neck contact on the video, I changed my mind after actually observing the arm/neck contact in the video. I was wrong, I agree with BillyMac, Camron Rust, and Raymond that there was actually was arm/neck contact. However I disagree with BillyMac, Camron Rust, and Raymond that this arm/neck contact is illegal contact that warrants a foul, but rather, I believe that this is legal incidental contact that does not warrant a foul for the following reasons ...

After that, it becomes easy to have a professional and productive discussion and debate with you.

Words matter. They should not be simply discarded and cast aside.

Agree. That's why I've been posting these IAABO Make The Call Videos, even though few Forum members are IAABO members. Non-IAABO Forum members can just ignore the followup IAABO Play Commentary and Correct Answer, or are certainly welcome to criticize such. I've been critical or some of the IAABO Play Commentaries and Correct Answers, and I'm a proud, loyal IAABO member.

All Contact Above The Shoulders ...
 

Totally agree 100%.

I didn't want to dive down this rabbit hole because the jury's out regarding 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 ...

... but since you brought it up, you're wrong. The Point Of Emphasis actually did address all types of contact with the head (above the shoulders):

2012-13 Points Of Emphasis Contact Above The Shoulders
Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties.
1. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2. An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3. A moving elbow that is excessive can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

It says that all contact to the head initiated by a moving elbow has to be adjudicated as some type of foul (common, intentional, or flagrant). The only time a foul may not be adjudicated is contact with the head by a stationary elbow, and even then, under a few circumstances that may be adjudicated as a common foul, but with other circumstances it may also be adjudicated as incidental.

The ball handler's arm/elbow in the video was moving, and that resulted in contact to the defender's head (enough to cause defender's head to move), so eight years ago, it was interpreted to be a foul of some type (common, intentional, or flagrant).

Of course that may no longer be valid, but that's another story for another time.

Bottom line, you were wrong about the old interpretation, it did address all the kinds of contact with the head (above the shoulders).

Which kind of contact with the head (above the shoulders) was omitted?

A slight touch to the head? Yeah, technically it's contact. But we always are to consider intent and purpose, use common sense, and use our experience. It's why we get paid the big bucks.

Yes I do not see any contact from that angle and even if there was it does not mean something special needs to be called.

Intentional and Flagrant fouls were POEs this year. Where is the language that says contact with the head and shoulders must be considered either Intentional or Flagrant? ;)

Peace

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

No Contact ...
 

If you don't see any contact at all, than how can you offer a valid opinion on said contact regarding whether the contact is legal incidental contact that doesn't warrant a foul, or illegal contact that does warrant a foul?

One can't say "if there was" contact and speculate about illegal/incidental, because one didn't see the contact, so how can one form a logical opinion regarding the legality of contact that one never observed.

To those of us (me, Camron Rust, and Raymond) that believe that there was contact, just say "Your'e wrong. There wasn't contact". Period, end of discussion. No need for you to rationalize why the contact wan't a foul, because, according to you, there was no contact.

Camron Rust, and Raymond both saw the contact, if they were to state an opinion that said contact was legal contact the didn't warrant a foul, that would carry at lot of weight, because they actually saw the contact before forming an opinion (they didn't, they, like me, believe that this is illegal contact that does warrant a foul).

You don't see any contact. Just state it, and move on. No contact means no foul. No need to discuss illegal/incidental. No need to discuss an old Point Of Emphasis valid, or invalid. It's a stand alone statement. It's an opinion that shouldn't be ridiculed (despite video evidence), and should be given some consideration. But how can you logically opine on contact that, according to you, you never observed, and doesn't even exist?

No such language because the Point of Emphasis just restates verbatim (no additional commentary) the existing rule as written, the same rule that existed in 2012-13 when the infamous Point of Emphasis came out. While the rule and current 2020-21 Intentional Foul Point of Emphasis does list some examples, it does so in a very general way (one exception: contact with a thrower-in), such as "excessive contact", not listing such contact such as grabbing a jersey on a breakaway layup, bear hug on a breakaway layup, two hand push from behind on a breakaway layup, etc. Rather than listing all the examples of intentional fouls, the rule and current 2020-21 Intentional Foul Point of Emphasis simply states "are not limited to"

POE Did Not Address All The Kinds Of Contact ...
 

Never got a reply to this above.

No Need For Infamous 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Point Of Emphasis ...
 

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:

However:

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.

IAABO Survey Says …
 

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%.

You clearly have never been a person responsible for training or evaluating officials on actual games. If you had, there are many things on video without the multiple angles you can question or wonder what the officials saw. As stated when you do not see something the official sees, you ask them or evaluate the situation based on what the video shows. It is not uncommon to state that officials "beat the tape." That means try your best to call things the video supports. If we are debating if there was contact by the defender or contact by the offensive player, then you are not beating the tape. So yes I can offer an opinion about what I saw or did not see.

I can say a lot of things. And in the options YOU 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 they did not feel that it rose to any such level.

Good for you and them, do you want a cookie? Did you get a big prize because you believe there was contact? Nope. I was not making my opinion based on others. If I wanted to then I could mention the couple of people that said they could not tell. Glad you think this is a contest.

I stated what I said some time ago and you do what you do, repeat the same argument over and over again!!!! This is what annoys people, even the people you referenced. You are mostly going on and on about things that really are not relevant to the original discussion and mostly argue with yourself. Not sure why it is so important for me to agree with you on anything.

We are well aware of what the language states. But there is no special dispensation in the rules as there was not 20 plus years ago. So nothing is stopping your or any "rulebook official" calling more than a common foul of some kind when there is contact with the head and neck area, but you certainly do not have some directive requiring that to take place. I never have said you should not consider any contact with the head and neck area for an upgraded foul, just said that it is not automatic or must be called as a result of such contact. It could be ruled incidental as the rules state in 4-27 that severe contact can be ruled incidental and no such rule says that contact with the head and neck area cannot be ruled incidental. In this video, it is questionable if there is any contact as the defender from the angle moves backwards, but I see nothing that suggests contact was with or only with that area of the defender. As I stated before, if the contact is with the torso and after that, there is some contact above the shoulders, then in this particular play it is incidental at best. Again, still cannot show me a place where the rules say what you are suggesting. It is a judgment call and not a very good one if that is your point of view. But what else is new?


Peace

No Argument ...
 

Yes you can, never said you couldn't. If you didn't see any contact, I've got no problem with that, disagree, but have no argument.

But how can you comment on contact that warranted or didn't warrant a foul for contact that you yourself didn't see?

Unless you mean the foul was not warranted because there wasn't contact. That I disagree with in this video, but I respect that opinion. In order for you to do that, be sure not to use the word "incidental" (a word that was used several times in your posts) because that does imply some type of legal contact.

No Flagrant Or Intentional Mentioned ...
 

.. By me, or by IAABO.

Good point. I personally didn't even consider an upgrade, but 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)

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

Ill get back to everybody once I get a reply.

Opinions ...
 

Lots of opinions, in regard to whether, or not, there was, or wasn't, contact of any type; and if there was contact, plenty of opinions regarding whether, or not (incidental), the contact warranted a foul call; and then whether it was a blocking foul, or a player control foul. Lots of room around the table for discussion about a poor quality video, including some that didn't want to comment at all on record because of such a bad angle in the video.

Valued Opinion ...
 

No, I'm arguing with you, not necessarily because of your opinions, but rather, because of the sometimes confusing and contradictory appearing words (incidental) that you use to express your usually valued opinion.

Moot Point ...
 

Agree with you on the first point. Second point is moot because I did not invoke the old Point of Emphasis to explain my call, and did not rule intentional as the Point of Emphasis stipulates.

Regarding "automatic", you may be right, because we do not have any recent citations, of any type, stating that the old Point of Emphasis is still valid.

However, I may be right because we don't have any citation of any type stating that the old Point of Emphasis is now invalid. Nor do we have any rule changes, caseplay changes, annual interpretations, or newer Point of Emphases that would give even a hint that the old Point of Emphasis is now invalid.

Jury's out, and by jury, I mean the NFHS, not BillyMac, not JRutledge, not the Forum, and not IAABO.

Only the highest levels of the NFHS know for sure.

Second Hand Rationales ...
 

Still can't figure out how you can state this opinion when you don't see the contact, unless you mean that "any" ruling of contact (incidental, player control foul) is impossible because there wasn't any contact, only basing your opinion on observations stated by others, including me, in the thread. If that's the case, then I finally get it. I still disagree, but I get some of your second hand rationales.

If you stop trying to argue with yourself you might figure out basic things that others are telling you. ;)

Peace

Well nothing you are saying is changing my position. You have a good one.

Peace

I do not work for the NF or answer to them. So unless they put something in the rulebook that is specific, the people I work for have not ever told us to call an Intentional or Flagrant Foul for simple elbow contact. Maybe who you work for this is an issue, not where I live. The only time this is an issue is when people try to use old POEs and try to use some standard that is at other levels that is an issue.

Peace

Update ...
 

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?

Monopoly ...
 

Great point.

Things are pretty simple regarding consistency here in Connecticut. Every single high school official in the entire state is an IAABO trained official. Every single high school game (and many middle school games) is assigned by an IAABO local board employed assigner. All local IAABO interpreters (trainers) coordinate under the guidance one IAABO state interpreter, who is guided by the four IAABO International co-coordinators of interpreters (the Gang of Four).

Our state interscholastic sports governing body (CIAC) pretty much follows the guidelines of IAABO (it's the only game in town).

And finally, IAABO International is very chummy with the NFHS (I believe that IAABO has a permanent seat at the NFHS rules committee table). Seldom (exception: last time free throw went from hit to release) would IAABO, on any level, international, state, or local, teach (that's what IAABO does, number one priority is to teach) anything that goes against any NFHS guidelines.

Irrelevant. Not what I am referencing and not how my the two states work.

Peace

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

And I Read Every Word He Says, Reason For My My Occasional Debates With JRutledge ...
 

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?).

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

Not Learned In Kindergarten ...
 

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.

Crystal Ball ...
 

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

Can I call them?

Anybody want some stock tips?

Buy low, sell high.

Gang Of Flour Reply ...
 

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.

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

Curiosity Killed The Cat ...
 

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.

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

Fun With Elbows, Part III ...
 

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.

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

Where Are My Car Keys ???
 

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.L...=0&w=300&h=300

Off the hook.

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.

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

Two Sides Of Every Coin ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

IAABO Video Referenced.
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/l5hTMZ2ScEs" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Post Play Contact ...
 

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?

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

Wow ...
 

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.

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

Boyz II Men ...
 

Historically black colleges. I may be behind the times, I believe that they're now called historically black colleges and universities. I'm sure that Howard is, not sure about Samford.

Yes, absolutely, always with separate NCAAM and NCAAW content. We always get it in our monthly Inside the Lines bulletins, our bi-monthly Sportorials magazines, our International Fall Seminars, and also in our recent COVID online Zoom presentations.

From our very recent IAABO Executive Director's Annual Report: IAABO continues to create a separate handbook for Canada that contains FIBA rules and interpretations, including a handbook … and other instructional materials for the FIBA rule changes. Periodic quizzes have been prepared for our international members and have been well received. During the course of this year, we were able to complete the terms of our agreement with CBOA to establish the Men’s Collegiate Board 800. Concurrent with that agreement, we were also successful in establishing Board 801 for the Women’s Collegiate Basketball Officials Organization (WCBOO). The addition of these two boards now allows IAABO to service members interested in NFHS, Men’s Collegiate, Women’s Collegiate and the International games. Efforts are being made to include all videos, quizzes and training materials for all four sets of rules.

Since well before the technological expansion of high school video, IAABO has often used video of college games to demonstrate, or explain, principles of high school rules, interpretations, and/or mechanics, which has continued (though somewhat decreased) up to and including recent times. Often, but not always, there will be some type of introductory statement, almost always live by the presenter, anybody from a local interpreter, up to to international seminar presenter, that what we're viewing on the video is a college game, but that we can still learn about high school rules, interpretations, and/or mechanics, from the video, and video play commentary.

It is for this reason, as well as the school names on the jerseys, as well as the degree of physical maturity and size of the players, that I believed that this was a video of a college game, despite also knowing that some high school games (state tournament late round games) are played on college basketball sites (in this case the University of Delaware).

JRutledge: Are you 100% positive that this is a high school game?

They are referred to as HBCU (Historically Black Colleges and Universities). I have several family members that attended them, my mom was one of them who attended FAMU. :D

Howard is a University that is an HBCU. Samford is a Christian school, which was ironically first-named Howard College.

Well, they don't as it is related to the NASO product line. Not sure why or if they care, but this was part of their "You Make the Ruling" Videos and all that content is high school-related. The NCAA puts out their own content through NASO or through Arbiter mainly when it comes to videos.


Honestly, it does not matter because IAABO never discusses NCAA Rules or CCA Mechanics. So it is not a high school game, they are selling it as one for the purposes of these plays. Again, this was a high school video series, if it is not a high school game they certainly are not talking all throughout the video as such. Again this is your organization, you should know what they are using better than me. So if this happened a couple of years after the POE which you love to tell me has to be followed, then they certainly did not mention this. Also, college has provisions for elbow contact but again they have when it should apply and when it should not apply to a Flagrant Foul (different terminology). The voice-over never addressed this at all.

On another note, the players look nothing like college players to me in either size or look. I do not see a kid taller than 6'2 or 6'3 on the floor, including the players in the post where the foul was called. Neither does the calling official look like a college official in this play, he looks like a high school official, especially with the way he called the foul. But that is just my take.

Peace

Not Your Father's Oldsmobile ...
 

Go Lady Rattlers. To show how New England white I am, other than viewing television commercials for the United Negro College Fund (“A mind is a terrible thing to waste”), I never knew much about historically Black colleges and universities until fictional television character Denise Huxtable left Brooklyn to attend Hillman College, a fictional historically Black college.

Certainly true for the first ninety-five years of IAABO, not true for the past five years. 2021 IAABO is not your father's Oldsmobile.

As I stated, almost all introductory statements that what we're viewing on video is actually a college game are offered live and in person by the presenter, anybody from a local interpreter, up to to international seminar presenter, such statements seldom show up in the video.

Nor did the written IAABO play commentary of the recent Make The Call Video, however, as recently as January, 2021 IAABO did broach the POE subject in the IAABO play commentary of another Make The Call Video.

The NFHS Rules Committee meeting.

IAABO had a seat at the table of the recent three day NFHS Rules Committee meeting where the contact above the shoulders controversy was discussed. The NFHS will soon clarify the position of the NFHS regarding such contact. We don't know what that clarification will be, but maybe the change over the past three months from IAABO supporting the POE to IAABO ignoring the POE is a signal that this POE will be invalidated, or simply treated as just a "guideline" rather than as an automatic hard-fast rule. This IAABO change in philosophy over the past three months signals to me that the NFHS will probably not continue with the POE in it's current form.

Due to it's controversial nature, I haven't held anyone to that standard for several years, but I will discuss reasons why it may no longer be valid, as well as reasons why it may still be valid. For me personally, I use it as a guideline, and while it causes me to pause to think (purpose and intent of POE) about a possible upgrade, it's not an automatic "must do" rule for me. My philosophy is that just because we can upgrade to intentional fouls or flagrant fouls doesn't necessarily mean that we have to (as the POE mandates). If, for whatever reason, one decides to upgrade, the POE will provide some written backing above and beyond existing definitions of intentional fouls and flagrant fouls, if necessary.

No problem with that opinion, it's still a good video if the visual part of the video is a high school game, or a college game, as long as the play commentary audio part of the video is high school based (assuming the audience is interested in such).

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.u...=0&w=300&h=300

Old 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.

Hope Springs Eternal ...
 

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!