Strange Case Continued ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

For some reason I got locked out of the original thread.

Anybody else having a problem? Did I finally do it? Did I finally post too many posts and break the Official Forum?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

POEs are to EMPHASIZE 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.

Agree. I believe that the NFHS dropped the ball on this one.

Because the NFHS decided to go the Point Emphasis route instead of the rule change route, does that automatically make this Point of Emphasis invalid, null, and void after only one year in the "book"?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. I believe that the NFHS dropped the ball on this one.

Because the NFHS decided to go the Point Emphasis route instead of the rule change route, does that automatically make this Point of Emphasis invalid, null, and void after only one year in the "book"?

As far as I'm concerned, yes. I don't study old rule books. I officiate by the current rules and case plays. When I'm in the locker room discussing plays and situations from games I'm working or about to work, I pull out what's current.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I don't study old rule books. I officiate by the current rules and case plays.

Good point.

But there are other ways of becoming good official beside reading current books, like listening to veteran trainers. But you do make a valid point, a point that I believe is shared by JRutlelge, his point also being valid, yet I still disagree with both respected Forum members. I can't (and shouldn't) ignore something that I'm aware of. Inexperienced officials are another story, they don't know what they don't know.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

Great question.

Did the contact involve a swinging elbow, because that's what 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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Good point.

But there are other ways of becoming good official beside reading current books, like listening to veteran trainers. But you do make a valid point, a point that I believe is shared by JRutlelge, his point also being valid, yet I still disagree with both respected Forum members. I can't (and shouldn't) ignore something that I'm aware of. Inexperienced officials are another story, they don't know what they don't know.

I am a veteran trainer. I'm also someone looked to by multiple supervisors to research rules (NCAA and NFHS) to provide answers to coaches and ADs who send in inquiries. They want references from the CURRENT rules in place.

You DO NOT become a good official by substituting outdated citations for what is currently in place. I tell younger officials all the time to watch out who you listen to. #1 on that list for me are veteran officials who do not keep current on rules and instead go by what they remember reading somewhere in 2013 or whatever year they last decided to study the rules.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You DO NOT become a good official by substituting outdated citations for what is currently in place.

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

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