The Strange Case Of The Vanishing Caseplay ...
 

I am one who believes that old Points of Emphasis, vanished casebook plays, and annual one-time only interpretations are still valid as long as there are no relevant rule changes or interpretation changes to invalidate such, and that some casebook interpretations may be dropped from the casebook due to page limitations, or inadvertent oversights.

Other Forum members logically argue that everything valid should be in the current NFHS Rulebook or NFHS Casebook, and if not, old interpretations, and old Points of Emphasis (statute of limitations), not in the current NFHS Rulebook or NFHS Casebook should be ignored, often citing the inability of new, or inexperienced, officials to know such if it's not in the current books.

Examples include:

10.6.1 Situation E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. Ruling: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down (vanished from casebook in 2005-06).

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.

I am planning to attend the 2021 IAABO Fall Seminar in Trumbull, CT, October 1, 2021 to October 3, 2021, and 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. I won’t be ambushing them, I’ve already contacted them in regard to this issue, and they have replied that they will try to get some input from the NFHS.

Can any Forum members think of any other examples of old Points of Emphasis, vanished casebook plays, or annual one-time only interpretations that we have debated the validity of here on the Forum?

I would like to present additional examples regarding this issue to the IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Q...=0&w=270&h=199

NFHS Shot Clock Conflict ...
 

I also intend to ask about the new NFHS shot clock guidelines, specifically about the apparent conflict between the NFHS shot clock guideline of starting the shot clock when a player inbounds legally touches the ball on a throw-in; and using the shot clock to administer the 10-second backcourt count, which, by current rule, starts when a player inbounds controls the ball on a throw-in.

Is there verbiage in the NFHS rule book that contradicts this ruling?

I've Fallen And I Can't Get Up ...
 

According to some Forum members, possibly some guarding, or screening, rules, but these rules simultaneously existed when a valid 10.6.1.E was in the casebook.

10.6.1.E goes back to at least 1996-97 (the oldest NFHS Rulebook in my library), so it was a NFHS interpretation for, at least, nine years, not a one hit wonder. 10.6.1.E suddenly disappeared, unannounced, in 2005-06 without any comment from the NFHS. There was no significant change in the rules regarding this situation in 2005-06 (nor have there been significant changes since), nor has there been a replacement casebook situation interpreting this as illegal.

4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent ... Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

The rule hasn't changed. The language in the vanished caseplay still matches the rule language: Unless B1 made some effort (extending arm, leg, rolling, etc.) to trip or block A1, B1 is entitled to a position on the court even if B1 is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

Additional Examples ...
 

My purpose of my thread is not to debate the validity of two specific examples that I have presented.

We've been through such debates dozens of times in the past on the Forum, with logical, and rational opinions offered on both sides.

My intent here is to better prepare my questions regarding the the validity (in general) of old Points of Emphasis, vanished casebook plays, or annual one-time only interpretations to be presented at the 2021 IAABO Fall Seminar by getting additional examples of old Points of Emphasis, vanished casebook plays, or annual one-time only interpretations who's validity has been debated and questioned here on the Forum.

Please try to stay away from debating the validity of the specific examples in this thread.

If yet another debate is necessary, or desired, please start a new thread.

And count me in. Everyone knows that I can't resist a good, lively debate.

I'm debating the validity of including old interps or case plays that are not contradictory to the way the rules are currently written. If they are not contradictory, why would a new official not be able to learn the proper adjudication using the current rules in place?

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

The only thing that really should be noted is that a POE addressed a topic. It is possible that a POE's philosophy has changed or that aspect of the rules have changed and as stated, there is no need for them anymore. And some POEs are flat out wrong too. They have in the past used language or said things that did not match with the rule. It is 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.

Peace

Ambiguous ...
 

Because some specific interpretations (i.e., 10.6.1 Situation E), often about odd, or rare situations, may not be perfectly or sufficiently explained by rule language alone. While rule language may be sometimes ambiguous, interpretations are almost never ambiguous. Many highly regarded and very competent Forum members have logically and rationally cherry-picked rule language to contradict the interpretation of 10.6.1 Situation E, claiming it was an illegal blocking foul.

Telling the committee that "highly respected forum members" might be able to nit-pick the rule would not get much traction from me if I were on the committee. I would want the person presenting to specifically point out where the contradiction is with the current rule verbiage.

And again with POEs, they are points of emphasis not interpretations or new rules or case plays. They literally mean that a specific rule is a "point of emphasis" for the rules committee.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Specific Penalties ...
 

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.

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

Contradiction
 

Not sure what committee Raymond is talking about, but I do agree with him on his second point regarding contradiction.

"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"

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

One And Done ...
 

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.

Also, I really wish you would quit using The excuse of "other forum members". Can't you evaluate these claims on your own? You're the one presenting, so you're the one who needs to back up your information. When I'm talking with other officials about rules and such, "somebody said" it's not a valid point of discussion.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

They reappear because officials are not properly enforcing the rule.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

General Question ...
 

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.

Reappear ...
 

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

Not Planning To Debate Specific Claims ...
 

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.

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

Debate Black Hole ...
 

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.

I agree with Raymond. Stupid NFHS.

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

Concussion Outrage ...
 

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.

Again.

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.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.-...=0&w=300&h=300

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

Rule Language Versus Point Of Emphasis Language ...
 

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.

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.

https://live.staticflickr.com/1634/2...32ceb38a_m.jpg

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

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

Peace

Another Elbow play
 

What about this play?

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

Peacew

Things That Make You Go Hmmm ...
 

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

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.

Contact Above The Shoulders ...
 

Thanks JRutledge. Great video to interpret contact above the shoulders.

As a high school only official, I will interpret this under current NFHS rules and a relevant, but old, Point of Emphasis, that as a veteran official I'm am well aware of and can't ignore, or pretend to ignore, because, as far as I know, it's still valid, has never been ruled invalid, null, or void, and there have been no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes to invalidate such.

Contact above shoulders? Yes. Elbow to chin.

Excessively swinging elbows? Yes, elbows were swinging with no feet pivoting, as well as elbows swinging faster than the hips were rotating.

Type of foul? A moving elbow that is excessive that results in contact above shoulders can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

My interpretation: Intentional excessive contact foul. Close, but not quite violent enough to be a flagrant foul.

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.

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.


How will an inexperienced official interpret this with no current rulebook containing the 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Points Of Emphasis?

Hopefully, he would have had a great trainer who covered this situation during the training classes.

Failing that, the inexperienced official would have to make his interpretation solely based on 4-129-3 and 4-19-4.

Stupid NFHS.

Rulebook ...
 

It was only in the rulebbok because it was a Point of Emphasis that year, as with all annual Points of Emphasis. And there was a NF Power Point, as with all annual Points of Emphasis.

Was it in the actual rule part of the rulebook and more importantly, is it still the rulebook?

test
 

test