The Strange Case Of The Vanishing Casebook Play ...

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

The NF overreacted to the concussion outrage that was going on for a few years in many sports and then addressed something without changing the rule. Not sure how long it was going to last, but it would help if you change the rule or put in language that supports what was stated in the POE or what you intended in the POE. It is not about how long something is to last, but can I now look in the rulebook and see a line about how to address contact above the shoulders?

And again the NCAA addressed this and kept tweaking with rules and philosophies for a few years to get what they are doing now. Their first bite at the apple was really silly and they altered it a few times to make a play not so punitive if the contact was inadvertent.

The NF has put in POEs for Intentional Fouls several times since and never mention any such play with contact above the shoulders. So either the committee was not aware of what they said before or they did not see a need to change the rule for this specific kind of play. That is why I do not call it any differently than I did before that POE in 2012. We have the language that makes sense already to call or not call contact above the shoulders. If you want to highlight a specific situation, then put something in the rulebook or casebook that clears up any confusion.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... NF overreacted to the concussion outrage that was going on for a few years in many sports and then addressed something without changing the rule. Not sure how long it was going to last, but it would help if you change the rule or put in language that supports what was stated in the POE or what you intended in the POE. It is not about how long something is to last, but can I now look in the rulebook and see a line about how to address contact above the shoulders? ... If you want to highlight a specific situation, then put something in the rulebook or casebook that clears up any confusion.

Agree with JRutledge 100%, stupid NFHS, but that is still not a good reason to make the parameters and penalties specified in the 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Point Of Emphasis currently invalid, null, and void.

We should wait until the NFHS "officially" makes these parameters and penalties invalid, null, and void.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... The NF has put in POEs for Intentional Fouls several times since and never mention any such play with contact above the shoulders ...

Again.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... 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 JRutledge

That is why I do not call it any differently than I did before that POE in 2012.

Did you not even call it the "proper" way for one season in 2012-13?

Note: In my little corner of Connecticut, and Connecticut overall, we don't always do what were told to do, by either the NFHS, or IAABO. We're rebels.