Yes, it makes it invalid. Yes, there is no way easily to reference something to most people that cannot see it in the current rulebook. It is noted if you have nothing there to contradict an old interpretation, but how in the world can I reference something and I do not even know what year it was made? Other than these conversations on this site, I did not even know what year the POE took place. I do not keep those old rulebooks readily available and the app does not go back to old rulebooks either. To me it is silly to keep referencing these as the standard and the NF never changed or added any reference to this application of the rules. Heck they do not even talk about it in the NASO publications or constantly telling us how these are apart of intentional foul rulings. Most officials I know never heard of this site or would never come here if they do. We cannot rely on a very small part to expect everyone else to follow that logic.

Peace

One And Done ???
 

Agree. Now define outdated.

It's one thing for Raymond, or JRutledge to say that a citation is outdated (that may be true), but it's another thing for the NFHS to say that something is outdated (that is true).

Does the NFHS still want to decrease contact above the shoulders? Has that changed? I doubt it.

So exactly when did the NFHS (not Raymond, or JRutledge) want this citation to become outdated? One and done? Two years? More?

It is not about what one believes. IT is about what they will find when looking right now. This reference is almost 10 years old. That means many officials, coaches and players were not around when such POE was put out. And you want me to send a coach a ruling based on some rulebook that has been reproduced almost 10 times? And never referenced in any publications about the very thing we are talking about? This play happens often enough that if that was the expected ruling, I think we would have heard something from someone on the NF committee or the publications they produce in many forms.

Peace

When ...
 

And when exactly did it become invalid? One and done? Is that what the NFHS intended when it tried to decease contact above the shoulders?

I do not want it to become anything. I would think that if you have made Intentional Fouls a POE and talked about all kinds of situations where we shoudl call one, you would at least keep up the same interpretation every time you have referenced intentional and flagrant fouls. Just last year this was the case and no reference to calling anything special or different. Not even your beloved IAABO references any such thing in their video segments that NASO puts out. So if they want something to "stop" then put it somewhere so we can refer to it when that is the reason we call something like that. Other than that, I take it can be incidental or common foul in nature just like the rules currently support. You tried to argue with me what was said about handchecking but cannot reference what rule says contact above the head and shoulders is automatically an intentional or flagrant foul.

Peace

Where I work, HS and NCAA, we are expected to use CURRENT rule book language in explaining adjudication of plays. A good veteran official will train younger officials how to handle situations in a common sense manner that can be supported by the current rule book/case plays/published interpretation.

That includes how to handle contact to the head and neck area. Good trainers and veteran officials will teach new officials how the current language in 4-19-3 and 4-19-4 can be used to justify the local expectations on those plays.

If I send a coach a 2012 citation that no longer is published to justify a 2021 ruling, I'm going to lose all credibility for the organization I represent.

It became invalid when it was no longer published and they chose not to include the verbiage in succeeding rules and case books. By your logic, in 2052 we should still being using t as a reference.

Sounds like you're trying to justify your teaching of "automatic" rulings to new officials without having current references to validate your interpretation.

You Don't Know What You Don't Know ...
 

Again, if one is aware of the point of emphasis, use it. If one isn't aware, don't use it.

JRutledge and Raymond may be correct. Hopefully I'll find out in a few weeks, if not from the NFHS, then from IAABO, which obviously won't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

IAABO did recently use this Point of Emphasis in one of their You Make The Call Videos.

Invalid ...
 

Raymond's common sense definition of invalid, or the NFHS's definition?

Odd that the NFHS should bother to publish a safety related Point of Emphasis that it only intended to emphasize for only one year.

Not In Current Rulebook ...
 

Correct.

I have already acknowledged several times that I know such is not in the current rulebook, just generic definitions of intentional and flagrant fouls.

I'm solely going by the Point of Emphasis.

Point Of Emphasis ...
 

Agree. My local IAABO and IAABO (according to You Make The Call video) use the Point of Emphasis.

When in Rome ...

Nfhs ...
 

I was asking about the NFHS, not you.

Credibility ...
 

Including announcers being cheerleaders, and visitors gathering on the home team's center circle logo?

Were those one and done? Does the NFHS no longer care?

Have you ever considered that it is no longer a problem? Have ever considered that they feel the rules as currently written are adequate to handle that situation? Have you ever considered they feel that localities are doing a good job deeming certain contact to the head as excessive contact and certain contact as normal basketball plays and they don't need to spell it out for the good folks in your corner of Connecticut?