Strange Case Continued ...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree, and that's the problem.

If one believes that the Point Emphasis is invalid, as JRutledge does, there is little rule rule support for specific point of contact, just generic rules for intentional, and flagrant, fouls, which can be subjective.

If one believes that the Point Emphasis is still valid, as I do, then that's the support that I use to make the interpretation and penalty based on the specific point of contact.

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

As you should. I do not understand this obsession with old interpretations that never made it into any rulebook. I get if you reference something that once was and it was a standard, but this is not one of those situations.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This reference is almost 10 years old. That means many officials, coaches and players were not around when such POE was put out.

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not even your beloved IAABO references any such thing in their video segments ...

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree, and that's the problem.

If one believes that the Point Emphasis is invalid, as JRutledge does, there is little rule rule support for specific point of contact, just generic rules for intentional, and flagrant, fouls, which can be subjective.

If one believes that the Point Emphasis is still valid, as I do, then that's the support that I use to make the interpretation and penalty based on the specific point of contact.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

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

When in Rome ...

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

I'd consider it an inexcusable flaw of rules writing to have a point of emphasis apply to any edition it doesn't appear in. Points of emphasis usually take up little space in a rule book, so if you wanted it to go on applying in subsequent editions, what's the point of removing it from them?

To me a POE is just a statement by a supervisory body to the effect, "Our experience in recent time has been that officials have not been administering this the way we intended or expected. Maybe they've even forgotten about it. We don't think there's anything wrong with how we wrote it, such that we could make it more explicit, but please take the following into account...." If that statement no longer appears in subsequent editions, that says to me that the body has at least reconsidered its importance.

There's a long-term problem with emphasis in that you can't emphasize everything, or it's no longer "emphasis". That being the case, the disappearance of a POE means it's at least no longer a priority (to make room for something else). But if writing something as a POE to actually [U]change or amplify the meaning[U] of something substantively, they're usurping the function of a POE, and when it disappears, that different meaning disappears with it. How else is somebody supposed to read an edition of the rules -- as mere suggestions? Hints on play of the game?

Maybe we should start a thread on POEs in the General section, since it would apply to all sports.

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

Does Fed use that language, i.e. "swinging elbows", not further defining "swinging"? Because using my non-basketball-official's understanding of swinging an elbow, I wouldn't even see that player as doing that. From football at least, but also ordinary talk, I think of somebody's swinging an elbow as moving it in approximately a horizontal plane, with the hands kept in approximately the same position. If the elbows are held out from the body and hands, I would see swinging the hips or pivoting the feet, not as mitigating factors, but exacerbating ones. I'm familiar with players in basketball abusively clearing out space like that in a circle around them after coming down with a rebound, sometimes seemingly crouched over the ball.

Here I see a player bringing the ball up with both hands from hip height to overhead, and the elbows are held out no farther than normal in doing so. An opponent who'd be barely visible, and certainly not his focus of attention, to the player making that move happens to get his chin in the way of that upward motion.

If Fed wants that player's actions to be a foul in basketball, fine, but if they expect someone to recognize that from the phrase "swinging elbows", then I see a problem.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Does Fed use that language, i.e. "swinging elbows", not further defining "swinging"?

4-24-8: It is not legal to swing arms and elbows excessively. This occurs when:
a. 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.
b. The aggressiveness with which the arms and elbows are swung could cause injury to another player if contacted.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

4-24-8: It is not legal to swing arms and elbows excessively. This occurs when:
a. 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.
b. The aggressiveness with which the arms and elbows are swung could cause injury to another player if contacted.

You do realize that you can hit someone with an elbow without swinging the elbow? Do you realize that at other levels there have been parameters for when or how you can legally move your body or elbows and not be responsible for that contact in a flagrant or above common foul way? You keep focusing on when someone swings an elbow and if I recall the POE was about contact above the shoulders, not just swinging elbows. So that means if you slapped at the ball and hit someone in the face, that could be addressed as an intentional or flagrant foul. That is why the NCAA got rid of the all-or-nothing standard of contact with the elbow and had to address some reasonable situations to rule a common foul if there is elbow contact that was just incidental.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You do realize that you can hit someone with an elbow without swinging the elbow? ... if I recall the POE was about contact above the shoulders, not just swinging elbows. So that means if you slapped at the ball and hit someone in the face, that could be addressed as an intentional or flagrant foul.

JRutledge is correct, it does address all contact (swinging, or not) above the shoulder, but it mostly deals with swinging, both excessive, and not excessive. It also deals with other types of above the shoulder contact as incidental (legal, no foul), or a common foul.

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 BillyMac

... the 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Points Of Emphasis deals with, for the most part, swinging (excessively or not excessively) elbows that make contact with an opponent above the shoulders? This sounds like a minor part of the Point Of Emphasis. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We know there are situations that incidental contact takes place and rule accordingly. Or just call a common foul for contact in other instances.

As one should according to the POE.

It even reminds us that swinging elbows excessively with no contact is not a foul, but can be a violation.

Too bad the NFHS didn't followup with rule changes spelling out the various options (maybe nothing "automatic", possibly using the word "consider", as I do when training), it's a nice little safety Point of Emphasis reminder, that shouldn't be flushed down the toilet. Of course, some say that you can't shine s..t.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I'd consider it an inexcusable flaw of rules writing to have a point of emphasis apply to any edition it doesn't appear in.

Agree. NFHS dropped the ball on this one.

As others have commented, this was probably a knee-jerk reaction to concussions, and not very well thought out.

Stupid NFHS.

[BillyMac]

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?

[Raymond]

POEs are for the season for which the rule book is written. They are written because the rules makers don't feel officials are properly or consistently enforcing a particular rule.

Why would a POE stay in the book every year? I'll repeat this again, but an effective POE is supposed to disappear.

Are we going to question every single POE that has disappeared? Why are we stuck on this one?

And I wish you would quit with this devil's advocate mission you seem to have assigned to yourself. We don't need a devil's advocate. We are intelligent people who know how to ask questions if we don't understand or want clarification. We don't need you running interference. To me when you ask these questions and create these debates, it's because you need clarification. Stop feeling like you're speaking for some silent minority who's afraid to speak for themselves.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

POEs are for the season for which the rule book is written. They are written because the rules makers don't feel officials are properly or consistently enforcing a particular rule. Why would a POE stay in the book every year? I'll repeat this again, but an effective POE is supposed to disappear. Why are we stuck on this one?

Agree. Well stated. This is different because it doesn't even match the rules language for the season in which it appeared, equating fouls to certain body parts to certain penalties (I'm agreeing with JRutledge). It's not in the rules language, only in the Point of Emphasis, that, as Raymond so elegantly stated, properly disappeared. Thus the only citation we have that equates fouls to certain body parts to certain penalties has disappeared.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This POE is quite odd.

Stupid NFHS.