Strange Case Continued ...

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You DO NOT become a good official by substituting outdated citations for what is currently in place.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You DO NOT become a good official by substituting outdated citations for what is currently in place.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 Now define outdated.

It's one thing for Raymond, or JRutledge to say that a citation is outdated (that may be true), but it's another thing for the NFHS to say that something is outdated (that is true).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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...but cannot reference what rule says contact above the head and shoulders is automatically an intentional or flagrant foul.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not want it to become anything.

I was asking about the NFHS, not you.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I was asking about the NFHS, not you.

I do not work for the NFHS. I work for the IHSA and the IHSAA as a licensed official and if they address those situations, then I will make note of it. But the IHSA only talked about that for a year and it never was mentioned again. Never heard anyone from the IHSAA say a word about this (only got licensed in 2017). And my work relationship is not like yours with IAABO. They do not hire us for games during the season, only the post-season. Yes they have say over interpretations, but if it was important or a problem, they would mention something. Again we have rules in place to address this issue. We do not have an automatic situation just because contact took place in a certain area of the body. If I could rule on an elbow play to the face before 2012 appropriately, it might not be too hard to rule after that time.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And my work relationship is not like yours with IAABO. They do not hire us for games during the season, only the post-season.

Not sure what it meant by this, and who is "they"?

I don't technically work for IAABO. My checks are signed by school administrators. Technically, I'm not even assigned by IAABO. My local IAABO board hires an independent assigner (one year contract) who does all the assigning, except for state tournament games, where all assignments are made by the state association (CIAC). IAABO, on the local, state, or international level is an educational organization.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We do not have an automatic situation just because contact took place in a certain area of the body.

Absolutely agree in regard to current (and probably past) NFHS rule language.

The existing rule language (intentional, flagrant) is very subjective, but does allow for penalties as described in the Point of Emphasis.

The only citation for such is in the very old Point of Emphasis.

And that's the crux of this problem, a problem caused by the NFHS in its not very well thought out Point of Emphasis.

How long did the NFHS intend this Point of Emphasis to be in effect?

Since it didn't add any parameters to the rulebook, did it intend only one year?

Or did it intend longer, but something fell behind a cabinet and was forgotten, or did a new regime come into power and forget to follow up?

Stupid NFHS.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Disclaimer: Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum. It is only posted in response to JRutledge's recent post.

IAABO Make The Call Video, January 20, 2021

IAABO Play Commentary Correct Answer: This is an intentional foul. If a player swings elbows excessively, (faster than the rest of the player’s torso), and contacts an opponent, it is at a minimum an intentional foul. If the contact is severe or the player ‘measures up’ the opponent, it is flagrant. (2012-13 POE) In this play, Red #35 swings her elbows in at a pace that exceeds the speed of the torso. This should be ruled an intentional personal foul. Officials only have rules support to rule this incidental contact or a common foul (player control foul) if the player's elbow was stationary when the contact occurred. (2012-13 POE)

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1041036