Strange Case Continued ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

The better to "pants" the officials on their way out? I gotta learn how this one started.

Remember, my story is about Connecticut and only about Connecticut.

When I started officiating high school basketball over forty years go, most high school officials wore (black) belted pants. Only exceptions were the guys (it was only guys back then) who also worked college games, they usually wore beltless pants in both their college games and high school games (why waste money on two different types of pants). As the years passed by, many high school only officials noticed that the beltless pants looked pretty sharp and started wearing them, and the percentage of high school only officials wearing beltless pants increased year after year. Several years ago IAABO International outlawed belted pants and made beltless pants mandatory (not sure about the NFHS).

Here in little corner of Connecticut, being the rebels that we are, we decided to be outlaws and we still allow (black) belted pants (old dog, new tricks), but always strongly suggest beltless pants to the young'uns.

And no, we don't allow suspenders.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, TickToc

What are these Facebooks, Twitters, Snapchats, and TickTocs that you speak of?

I have to go now and yell at the neighbor kids to get off my front lawn or I will turn the garden hose on them.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What are these Facebooks, Twitters, Snapchats, and TickTocs that you speak of?

I have to go now and yell at the neighbor kids to get off my front lawn or I will turn the garden hose on them.

If you do not know, that that is the point. IJS.

Peace

[BillyMac]

... when you were through using them, you could plant a garden.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... requiring the collared shirt ...

For IABBO guys here in Connecticut, it was a gray jersey (no cool black pinstripes back then) with a blue Byron collar and blue piping. And we could wear blue pants if we wanted to (but nobody ever did).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

JRutledge's most ridiculous post ever (I will apologize to JRutledge if moderators think I was over the top).

Any forum? Maybe (I don't participate in other forums except the Official Forum, except for an occasional You Tube event).

But in regard to the Official Forum? What has JRutledge been reading all these years?

The Forum is quite often about details.

Sometimes we quibble about single words (i.e., "opponent" for distracting a free thrower).

...

Jeff is 100% correct, most officials do not come to social media sites to discuss rules or plays. Most officials I know have never even heard of this website.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you do not know, that that is the point.

... and that is my point.

Note: I do know about them, but never use them useless somebody sends me a link. During the COVID lockdown, I did "attend" Sunday mass on our church's Facebook page. Very boring. My cousin actually got dressed up for her Facebook masses. I'm getting real good at Zoom, and I've always been a You Tube fan.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... and that is my point.

Note: I do know about them, but never use them useless somebody sends me a link. During the COVID lockdown, I did "attend" Sunday mass on our church's Facebook page. Very boring. My cousin actually got dressed up for her Facebook masses. I'm getting real good at Zoom, and I've always been a You Tube fan.

It is not about watching a long service or sitting in a meeting. You have to engage with your real identity to some extend and talk about plays and situations and even debate rules applications. Many officials have no desire to do that because also you will get challenged if you say something wrong or that others might not agree with. A lot different than this place for sure.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You have to engage with your real identity to some extend and talk about plays and situations and even debate rules applications. Many officials have no desire to do that because also you will get challenged if you say something wrong or that others might not agree with.

My daughter-in-law is a professor at Hofstra University, teaches media studies, and is considered an expert in social media (book and professional articles published, "go to" person for print, radio, and television news in the New York City market).

She advises me to stay off Facebook and Twitter (on any topic, not just basketball), tells me that I'll be eaten alive and spit out.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

My recent comments regarding the use of a common NFHS language only applies to language crossing local, or state boundaries, as in language used in the Forum, and in Referee Magazine. To use local, or state language instead of NFHS language when such language crosses local, or state boundaries (the Forum, Referee Magazine) can often lead to confusion unless properly noted.

What happens in my little corner of Connecticut, stays in my my little corner of Connecticut.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Great, the all important status of a 2012-13 POE is now moot.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It appears so because it's been changed.

There's a new sheriff in town.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

My daughter-in-law is a professor at Hofstra University, teaches media studies, and is considered an expert in social media (book and professional articles published, "go to" person for print, radio, and television news in the New York City market).

She advises me to stay off Facebook and Twitter (on any topic, not just basketball), tells me that I'll be eaten alive and spit out.

I didn't say it was for everyone. I use even Facebook for some very specific reasons. It works for me but then again I do not use it to say everything that comes to mind.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Great, the all important status of a 2012-13 POE is now moot.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It appears so because it's been changed.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

One of the old POE parameters isn't interpreted the same as it was in the old POE (an elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul) ...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... are still valid as long as there are no relevant rule changes or interpretation changes to invalidate such ...

“I meant what I said and I said what I meant.” (Horton Hatches The Egg, Theodor Geisel (Dr. Seuss), 1940)

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

QI just now watched the video and have not read a single comment in this thread yet; I will read the threads tomorrow and address the comments made in the thread, but without reading a single comment I will now present the only correct RULING.

I have a Pushing Foul on W23. I can hear everyone yelling: WHAT!!! ARE YOU CRAZY!! Not in the least. Let me elaborate:

R23 secured a Defensive Rebound and W23 took a Defensive Position with his torso perpendicular to R23's torso. W23's Defensive Position was such that his legs straddled R23's legs and his body was just short of contact with R23. W23's position put him inside R23's Cylinder of Verticality which means that W23 is responsible for any contact between him and R23 that occurs inside R23's Cylinder of Verticality.

I am now going back to the Tampa Bay at Torornto baseball game on the MLB Network.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Here's what I've gleaned from the three new casebook plays, existing definitions of intentional foul and flagrant foul in the rulebook, and the general purpose and intent of the old point of emphasis.

Contact Above the Shoulders: Player safety should be a high priority for all officials. In order to reduce concussions and decrease excessive contact situations, officials should consider penalty upgrades for illegal contact above the shoulders. Players shall not excessively swing arms or elbows, 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.

1) Excessively swinging arms or elbows without contacting the opponent is a violation.
2) Contact with an opponent above the shoulders with a stationary elbow may be incidental (legal), or a common foul (possibly a player control foul).
3) Making contact with an opponent above the shoulders with elbows that are excessively moving is considered an intentional foul.
4) If contact with an opponent above the shoulders is violent or excessive, a flagrant foul shall be ruled.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Here's what I've gleaned from the three new casebook plays, existing definitions of intentional foul and flagrant foul in the rulebook, and the general purpose and intent of the old point of emphasis.

Contact Above the Shoulders: Player safety should be a high priority for all officials. In order to reduce concussions and decrease excessive contact situations, officials should consider penalty upgrades for illegal contact above the shoulders. Players shall not excessively swing arms or elbows, 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.

1) Excessively swinging arms or elbows without contacting the opponent is a violation.
2) Contact with an opponent above the shoulders with a stationary elbow may be incidental (legal), or a common foul (possibly a player control foul).
3) Making contact with an opponent above the shoulders with elbows that are excessively moving is considered an intentional foul.
4) If contact with an opponent above the shoulders is violent or excessive, a flagrant foul shall be ruled.

Contact above the shoulders is not a problem in the game of basketball or at least not with elbow contact. Does it happen? Sure. But it is not an "every game" issue that takes place and we have to constantly deal with. Actually, some of the contact is not even an elbow, it is legal situations or situations that would involve running into another player like a screen. We have a concussion protocol and it is rare I have ever had to invoke it during a basketball game. We have to file a report if we send a kid out for a possible concussion or "concussion-like symptoms" regardless of the sport. I have even gone through most of a football situation and had no such protocols invoked.

I do not see anything special about these plays other than that is how we would have done it anyway (at least where I am). I said before I was in a game where a kid threw an elbow and hit his defensive opponent and we called an Intentional Foul after a PC foul was initially called. I gave information and the official agreed that we upgrade and no one said much of a word. No one went on about the language or the casebook we called what fit the wording we already had. It was excessive even if the player did not do something on purpose.

I simply think this supports what we would have likely done anyway.

Peace