The Strange Case Of The Vanishing Casebook Play ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

2012-13 Points Of Emphasis Contact Above The Shoulders
With a continued emphasis on reducing concussions and decreasing excessive contact situations the committee determined that more guidance is needed for penalizing contact above the shoulders. A player shall not swing his/her arm(s) or elbow(s) even without contacting an opponent. Excessive swinging of the elbows occurs when arms and elbows are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arms and elbows is in excess of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot.
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.

Originally Posted by Raymond

Also want to know why you would include POEs. Their purpose is to emphasize proper enforcement of current rules. An effective POE should disappear.

Pretty much the same answer for Points of Emphasis as for vanished casebook plays, and annual one-time only interpretations.

Because some Points of Emphasis (see Contact Above The Shoulders) may not be perfectly or sufficiently explained by rule language alone. While rule language may be sometimes ambiguous, Points of Emphasis are often not ambiguous. The Contact Above The Shoulder Point of Emphasis mandates very specific fouls (common, intentional, flagrant) for very, specific acts of contact above the shoulders, specific penalties not found in any rule language, except in a general way. Many highly regarded and very competent Forum members have claimed that the the Contact Above The Point of Emphasis has passed some type of statute of limitation, and if the NFHS wanted theses penalties to stick around this long, it should have been codified in the rulebook a long time ago.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... not something I would spend a lot of time on honestly worrying about what was said in the past that never made it to the rulebook or cannot stay in the casebook.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Pretty much the same answer for Points of Emphasis as for vanished casebook plays, and annual one-time only interpretations.



Because some Points of Emphasis (see Contact Above The Shoulders) may not be perfectly or sufficiently explained by rule language alone. While rule language may be sometimes ambiguous, Points of Emphasis are almost never ambiguous. The Contact Above The Shoulder Point of Emphasis mandates very specific fouls (common, intentional, flagrant) for very, specific acts of contact above the shoulders, specific penalties not found in any rule language, except in a general way. Many highly regarded and very competent Forum members have claimed that the the Contact Above The Point of Emphasis has passed some type of statute of limitation, and if the NFHS wanted theses penalties to stick around this long, it should have been codified in the rulebook a long time ago.

That is not a point of emphasis and that's on the rules committee for mislabeling it as such.

Maybe that's why it disappeared.





Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

That is not a point of emphasis and that's on the rules committee for mislabeling it as such. Maybe that's why it disappeared.

Maybe it was mislabeled as a point of emphasis. Probably should have been a rule addition, and written in the rulebook.

It disappeared because it was a one and done point of emphasis. Many points of emphasis have a tendency to reappear, but not this one.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Maybe it was mislabeled as a point of emphasis. Probably should have been a rule addition, and written in the rulebook.



It disappeared because it was a one and done point of emphasis. But many point of emphasis have a tendency to reappear, but not this one.

They reappear because officials are not properly enforcing the rule.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

They reappear because officials are not properly enforcing the rule.

Agree. Does that that mean that we're doing good job with Contact Above The Shoulders?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. Does that that mean that we're doing good job with Contact Above The Shoulders?

Again, that never was put into place as a rule or a constant interpretation. It was a one year comment and nothing to back it up by rule even after many times of putting in Intentional Foul as a POE like it was last year.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, that never was put into place as a rule or a constant interpretation. It was a one year comment and nothing to back it up by rule even after many times of putting in Intentional Foul as a POE like it was last year.

Didn't want to debate specific examples, but since I've been sucked into this debate black hole, I might as well put in my two cents.

As far as I know, points of emphasis do not have expiration dates, or a statute of limitations, other than rule changes, or interpretation changes (of which there have been none) that invalidate such.

How long did we expect this 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Point Of Emphasis to last? Only one year? Two years? Three years? Until there was a relevant rule change, or interpretation change? How long?

Also, while intentional fouls were a small part of this Point of Emphasis, it was not an Intentional Foul Point of Emphasis, but rather, a Contact Above The Shoulders Point Of Emphasis containing references to excessive swinging of elbows without contact (a violation), incidental contact, common fouls, intentional fouls, and flagrant fouls.

There are many, many other types of of intentional fouls that do not involve contact above the shoulders, and thus, were not covered in more recent Intentional Foul Points of Emphasis.

Originally Posted by Raymond

That is not a point of emphasis and that's on the rules committee for mislabeling it as such.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Maybe it was mislabeled as a point of emphasis. Probably should have been a rule addition, and written in the rulebook.

I agree with Raymond. Stupid NFHS.