The Strange Case Of The Vanishing Casebook Play ...

[BillyMac]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... planning to attend the 2021 IAABO Fall Seminar in Trumbull, CT, October 1, 2021 to October 3, 2021, and I intend to broach this issue with the “Gang of Four” IAABO International Co-Coordinators of Interpreters. I won’t be surprising 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.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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, 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 book.

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.

...

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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).

Originally Posted by Raymond

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?

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

[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

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.

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

[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]

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