Strange Case Continued ...

[JRutledge]

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.

Contact above shoulders? Yes. Elbow to chin.

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

Type of foul? A moving elbow that is excessive that results in contact above shoulders can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

My interpretation: Intentional excessive contact foul. Close, but not quite violent enough to be a flagrant foul.

4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to: Excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live

4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent nature involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing.

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.

How will an inexperienced official interpret this with no current rulebook containing the 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Points Of Emphasis?

Hopefully, he would have had a great trainer who covered this situation during the training classes.

Failing that, the inexperienced official would have to make his interpretation solely based on 4-129-3 and 4-19-4.

Stupid NFHS.

I do not see that as excessive at all and can make a case the contact was with mostly the chest then the head and neck area. He does not even have a bent elbow that was used, he is just turning. But the point is nothing in the current rule says that this is an intentional or even flagrant foul just because of where you contact them.

The NCAA has got even more specific and this could have been ruled a cylinder play at that level. One reason, the defender is supposed to give the ball handler room to move or pivot naturally. This is the thing, the NCAA used to have any elbow hitting an opponent as a Flagrant Foul (similar to targeting in football). If you deemed that took place in a monitor review, it was considered a Flagrant Foul no matter the circumstances for the most part. Well, they got rid of that because it made no damn sense. You were getting players just doing normal stuff and getting an upgrade that often was not even seen but on replay. So that is one of the reasons I do not like the NF position then (if that is even the position) because the game has evolved and addressed these issues in other codes. The rule cannot be so black and white on a grey type of play. And we have no monitor either?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But the point is nothing in the current rule says that this is an intentional or even flagrant foul just because of where you contact them.

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.

[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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

Apparently you have problems in Connecticut with announcers being cheerleaders, visitors gathering on the logo, and contact to the head.

My state sends out a mandatory rules clinic every year that includes dealing with situations they want handled a certain way that may or may not be spelled out in the rule/case books.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Apparently you have problems in Connecticut with announcers being cheerleaders, visitors gathering on the logo ...

We had problems, announcers that thought that they were at one of those old ESPN And One games, or a summer pro-am game, and visitors spitting on the center circle logo.

Our state board, and the state association, with the backing of the NFHS, ended that in a New York minute.

Still have a few problems with visitors gathering (not spitting) on the center circle. We've got the 2011-12 Point of Emphasis to cite if and when needed.

Proof that new coaches didn't read the 2011-12 Point of Emphasis.

Or is it invalid, not specifically being in the rulebbok and all?

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Including announcers being cheerleaders, and visitors gathering on the home team's center circle logo?

Originally Posted by Raymond

My state sends out a mandatory rules clinic every year that includes dealing with situations they want handled a certain way that may or may not be spelled out in the rule/case books.

We have something in Connecticut, a very short list that we refer to as "Connecticut Only".

Included on the list: Team members are not allowed to congregate at division line, or on school logo, during introductions.

I know it's not really Connecticut only, it was a 2011-12 NFHS Point of Emphasis, but it never made its way into the NFHS rulebook, so we keep the "rule" alive by mentioning it every year so that young'uns will know the "rule".

Stupid NFHS.

Eventually veteran officials will retire, or die, and "announcers not being cheerleaders" will be forgotten, leading to the resurrection of this 2014-15 Point of Emphasis.

Stupid NFHS.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Or was it an inadvertent editorial mistake?

This has happened in the rulebook. Defensive matchup after three substitutions (inadvertently deleted in it's entirety). Definition of goaltending (inadvertently deleted outside cylinder language).

[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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

There are assistant coaches who have the rule book on their phones or tablet and will verify information we give them concerning rule citations.

I don't think any of them search through this forum for old citations that disappeared. LOL

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I get if you reference something that once was and it was a standard, but this is not one of those situations.

"Not one of those situations". I agree. This POE is quite odd.

But how is "standard" defined, and who does the deciding?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"Not one of those situations". I agree. This POE is quite odd.

But how is "standard" defined, and who does the deciding?

If you are struggling with this, it must be noted that you are nearly alone here (at least in this conversation).

I do not see a lot of people struggling with this. We know there are situations that incidental contact takes place and rule accordingly. Or just call a common foul for contact in other instances.

Do what your higher-ups say to do. Keep it simple. But that does not have anything to do with the rest of us, we do not live where you do. It seems you have issues in your area many of us do not have at all.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not understand this obsession with old interpretations that never made it into any rulebook.

Because one may see it in their game and want to adjudicate correctly?

10.6.1 Situation E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. Ruling: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down

Vanished from casebook in 2005-06, it goes back to at least 1996-97 (the oldest NFHS Rulebook in my library), so it was a NFHS interpretation for, at least, nine years, not a one hit wonder.

There were no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, in 2005-06, so why did it disappear?

NFHS decided to change the interpretation to a foul, but with no announcement?

Deleted due to limited space in the casebook?

Editorial mistake?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This has happened in the rulebook. Defensive matchup after three substitutions (inadvertently deleted in it's entirety). Definition of goaltending (inadvertently deleted outside cylinder language).

4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent ... Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

The rule hasn't changed. The language in the vanished caseplay still matches the rule language: Unless B1 made some effort (extending arm, leg, rolling, etc.) to trip or block A1, B1 is entitled to a position on the court even if B1 is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

But we can't show a coach, or a young'un official, the casebook citation? Abracadabra. It vanished.

But we can show a 4-23-1 rule citation. Is that enough to rule a legal play?

If so, why did the NFHS bother to have made it a casebook play in the first place? Somebody must have had a question about it?

Could the NFHS have decided to change this interpretation to a foul?

I have a ton of curiosity. The suspense is killing me. Plus, the next time this happens in my game, I want to get it right.

Maybe I''ll get some answers in a few weeks?

Just have to keep my head on straight and not spend too much time in the open bar hospitality room.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Because one may see it in their game and want to adjudicate correctly?

10.6.1 Situation E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. Ruling: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down

Vanished from casebook in 2005-06, it goes back to at least 1996-97 (the oldest NFHS Rulebook in my library), so it was a NFHS interpretation for, at least, nine years, not a one hit wonder.

There were no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, in 2005-06, so why did it disappear?

NFHS decided to change the interpretation to a foul, but with no announcement?

Deleted due to limited space in the casebook?

Editorial mistake?



4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent ... Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

The rule hasn't changed. The language in the vanished caseplay still matches the rule language: Unless B1 made some effort (extending arm, leg, rolling, etc.) to trip or block A1, B1 is entitled to a position on the court even if B1 is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

But we can't show a coach, or a young'un official, the casebook citation? Abracadabra. It vanished.

But we can show a 4-23-1 rule citation. Is that enough to rule a legal play?

If so, why did the NFHS bother to have made it a casebook play in the first place? Somebody must have had a question about it?

Could the NFHS have decided to change this interpretation to a foul?

I have a ton of curiosity. The suspense is killing me. Plus, the next time this happens in my game, I want to get it right.

Maybe I''ll get some answers in a few weeks?

Just have to keep my head on straight and not spend too much time in the open bar hospitality room.

It would be so funny if the answer came back as "who knows and who cares? What is your question about interpreting the current rule and relevant case plays?"



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk