Strange Case Continued ...

[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]

That sure was fun. Let's move on to another example.

NFHS rules in the current rulebook only allow officials to change the clock with "definite” knowledge (observe clock, ten second count, three second count, five second count, mental end of period count, mental count of any type).

There is only one very specific situation that I am aware of that allows officials to "guess" or "estimate" (no actual count of any type) to change the clock, and it's not in rule language in the current rulebook.

2009-10 Basketball Rules Interpretations Situation 11: Team B scores a goal to take the lead by one point. A1 immediately requests and is granted a timeout with three seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. Following the time-out, Team A is awarded the ball for a throw-in from anywhere along the end line. A1 passes the ball to A2, who is also outside the boundary; A2 passes the ball to A1 who is inbounds and running the length of the court. The timer mistakenly starts the clock when A2 touches A1’s pass while standing outside the boundary. An official notices the clock starting on A2’s touch (a), before A2 releases the throw-in pass to A1, (b), while A2’s throw-in pass is in flight to A1, or (c), as soon as A1 catches the throw-in pass. Ruling: This is an obvious timing mistake and may be corrected. In (a) and (b), the official shall blow the whistle, stop play and direct the timer to put three seconds on the game clock. Since the throw-in had not ended, play is resumed with a Team A throw-in from anywhere along the end line. In (c), the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 – likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. The ball is put in play nearest to where it was located when the stoppage occurred to correct the timing mistake. A “do over” is not permitted in (c), since the throw-in had ended. (4-36; 5-10-1)

It's only a one and done annual interpretation, it's not in the rule language in the current rulebook (can't show it to a coach), it's twelve years old, and there have been no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, over the past twelve years.

Is it still valid; or is it invalid, null, and void.

[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 Robert Goodman

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?

2011-12 Points Of Emphasis Sporting Behavior
The NFHS Basketball Rules Committee continues to be concerned about the following behavior:
Pregame Situations. Teams entering the gymnasium prior to the contest should not run through the area occupied by the opposing team or under the basket where opponents are warming up. Teams should only enter, jog or warm-up on their own half of the court. Gatherings intended to motivate a team after the warm-up period, during or following player introductions and post-game celebrations should be performed in the area directly in front of the team bench. If during the pregame or half-time warm-up period one team leaves the floor, the other team should not use the entire court; teams should only warm-up on their half of the court. Only authorized personnel should be permitted on the floor. All spectators should be in designated areas.

Our biggest problem here in Connecticut was visitors spitting in the center circle on the logo during pregame introductions and claiming that they were only doing so to clean the bottoms of their shoes.

[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