The Strange Case Of The Vanishing Casebook Play ...

[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

"I intend to broach this general issue (the validity of old Points of Emphasis, vanished casebook plays, or annual one-time only interpretations) with the “Gang of Four” IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters"

Sorry I was misunderstood.

I meant it as a general question, not planning to dissect each specific example. Between dinners, hospitality rooms with open bars, comedy shows, and, or course, golfing, there's not enough time.

My question will be, "Are old Points of Emphasis, vanished casebook plays, and annual one-time only interpretations, with no relevant rule changes or interpretation changes, still valid according to the NFHS?".

I've already contacted the “Gang of Four” regarding this. Not only are they interested in this topic, they have been already discussing it in the past, and have told me that they will try to get input from the NFHS before the IAABO seminar.

[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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I really wish you would quit using the excuse of "other forum members". Can't you evaluate these claims on your own?

Not an excuse, just a point of fact. I have much respect and learn much from many members of this Forum, even when we disagree. And of course, I'm not always right.

Again, I'm not planning to debate specific claims, just the general question. And I think that I've already done a pretty good job debating my side of the debate with facts in several threads regarding both of these specific examples over the past many years.

I didn't get any closure, or win any prizes, or change any minds, but I held my own.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

I only remember one play in the last 10 years where a ball-handler hit a defender in the face with an elbow. And I was not the calling official and told my partner to upgrade it because he clearly measured him on some level. We did that and there was no language in the rulebook to do so other than discussing plays and if plays like that should be upgraded and when to upgrade certain contact. The POE made it sound like that is all you could call was an intentional or flagrant foul, similar to what the NCAA once did. But that had no common sense, so the NCAA changed its rules to reflect real-life or inadvertent situations. The NF never addressed it, so to me you do what makes sense. Just like all contact is not a foul, you have to consider when something is done out of the bounds of regular basketball and rule accordingly.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... a ball-handler hit a defender in the face with an elbow ... upgrade it because he clearly measured him on some level ... there was no language in the rulebook to do so ...

Plenty of rule language available, but very subjective, requiring judgement, and why we get paid the big bucks.

4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to: Excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live

4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent nature involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The POE made it sound like that is all you could call was an intentional or flagrant foul ...

True. Based on Point Of Emphasis language, somewhat less subjective:

If deemed not excessive (swinging) movement, it should be an intentional foul.

If deemed excessive (swinging) movement, it should be either an intentional foul, or flagrant personal foul.

[JRutledge]

https://app.photobucket.com/u/StateF...3-023cea174f78

Is this play under NF rules considered an intentional foul? Contact above the shoulders right?

Peace

[JRutledge]

What about this play?



Peacew

[BillyMac]

Do we not enforce announcers not cheering the home team on or otherwise inciting the crowd because it was never added to the rulebook and hasn't been a point of emphasis since 2014-15?

Do we not enforce specific pregame unsporting behavior (teams running through area occupied by the opposing team; gatherings to motivate a team following player introductions performed on the team logo in the center circle) because it was never added to the rulebook and hasn't been a point of emphasis since 2011-12?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Do we not enforce announcers not cheering the home team on or otherwise inciting the crowd because it was never added to the rulebook and hasn't been a point of emphasis since 2014-15?

Do we not enforce specific pregame unsporting behavior (teams running through area occupied by the opposing team; gatherings to motivate a team following player introductions performed on the team logo in the center circle) because it was never added to the rulebook and hasn't been a point of emphasis since 2011-12?

There was an entire directive about announcers in and out of the rulebook. There was a PowerPoint that discussed this in detail from the NF I believe and it was not about cheering, but giving certain information during the game. At least that is how I remember the details.

The team introductions were never a big issue where I lived, but we were told actually before the NF put stuff out about not allowing players to run around the court. That was what we are asked to prevent by our state office. Hardly ever was an issue about running onto a logo or through a team. But when they told us to penalize those things, we did everything to prevent them from happening. The home team does not come to the middle of the floor anymore.

Neither of these examples is comparable to us calling a specific foul for a specific action and not telling us if or when a play should be ruled incidental or not. Do we call it on a bigger player that rebounds the ball and comes down naturally onto a player in their vertical plane and hits their opponent with an elbow? That play happens kind of often at NCAA level and they specifically addressed those kinds of plays with video and directives in the rule and casebooks.

And you did not answer my question. Are these two plays fouls under the POE you so gladly love to mention anytime you get a chance? And if so why?

Peace

[Raymond]

POEs are to EMPASIZE an existing rule. A POE should reference existing rules/case play verbiage, not make up new criteria.

If a POE disappears it doesn't mean the rule disappeared.