Strange Case Continued ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The purpose of a POE is to EMPHASIZE a rule, not re-write it. A POE should directly reference verbiage in a rule. This 2013 POE you keep referencing did not reference any existing rules verbiage. If that's what the NFHS wants adjudicated, then they need to add language to the 4-19-3 and 4-19-4 concerning contact to the head specifically. Maybe if they wrote the rules they wanted it interpreted and adjudicated the wouldn't have needed a POE.

Preaching to the choir, and JRutledge and I are both in the choir (I'm a tenor).

Again, does that automatically make this Point of Emphasis invalid, null, and void after only one year in the rulebook?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Preaching to the choir, and JRutledge and I are both in the choir (I'm a tenor).

Again, does that automatically make this Point of Emphasis invalid, null, and void after only one year in the rulebook?

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes, it makes it invalid.

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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

It became invalid when it was no longer published.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Have you ever considered that it is no longer a problem?

Yes I have (we've already mentioned this in the thread). Maybe a reason why it didn't return again. Maybe we did, and still do, what the NFHS wanted.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

I actually teach mechanics, not rules (although I have in the past). However, I do mentor inexperienced officials. If this issue (head contact) comes up, knowing that they don't have access to the POE (which may be invalid), I refer them to the current intentional foul, and flagrant foul, rules, and mention that they may consider upgrades for head contact, advice based on my knowledge of the Point of Emphasis (degree of swinging elbows) without mentioning any "automatic" part.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I actually teach mechanics, not rules. However, I do mentor inexperienced officials. If this issue (head contact) comes up, knowing that they don't have access to the POE (which may be invalid), I refer them to the current intentional foul, and flagrant foul, rules, and mention that they may consider upgrades for head contact, advice based on my knowledge of the Point of Emphasis (degree of swinging elbows) without mentioning any "automatic" part.

You could teach them how to adjudicate that without referencing an out of date citation. You could just explain to them that certain contact to the head needs to be addressed differently than your run-of-the-mill foul. You could just tell them "around these parts we use certain guidelines to judge how the call should be made."

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You could teach them how to adjudicate that without referencing an out of date citation. You could just explain to them that certain contact to the head needs to be addressed differently than your run-of-the-mill foul. You could just tell them "around these parts we use certain guidelines to judge how the call should be made."

Maybe I wasn't exactly clear, that's what I do.

Because I'm old I know of the intent of the NFHS to decrease head contact, and I know of an old POE that described upgrades. I mention to them that they may want to consider upgrades involving contact to the head resulting from moving elbows (excessive, or not), without actually citing the POE, and never mentioning anything about anything being automatic, as implied in the POE.

While I still accept the POE for myself (until told otherwise), I'm not stupid, I know that the POE is both old, controversial, and possibly invalid, so I just tell them to consider an upgrade as allowed under the current rule language (intentional, flagrant) for circumstances involving contact to the head resulting from moving elbows (excessive, or not). Don't want the young'uns to get stuck on a ladder step (or fall off) because they have a old coot like me as a mentor. Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we teach "around" the POE (purpose and intent).