Strange Case Continued ...

[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

We had problems, announcers that thought that they were at one of those old ESPN And One games, or a summer pro-am game ...

I actually had a summer pro-am game announcer work one of my high school varsity games, cheering the home team on and inciting the crowd. I was the umpire. Discussed it with the referee between first and second period. Discussed it again with the referee at halftime, at which point I convinced the referee to broach the issue and speak to the announcer.

Straw that broke the camels back: "How could she miss such an easy shot?".

Referee couldn't ignore that.

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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".

What was that about? Hogging the spotlight? Forming a gauntlet for opponents to get thru? What about congregating at the door to the dressing room?

[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.