Strange Case Continued ...

[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 Now define outdated.

It's one thing for Raymond, or JRutledge to say that a citation is outdated (that may be true), but it's another thing for the NFHS to say that something is outdated (that is true).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So exactly when did the NFHS (not Raymond, or JRutledge) want this citation to become outdated?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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

You reference IAABO and others reference IAABO as to when that organization says something, the buck stops there. I am licensed by state organizations, but we teach locally how to do things. I am a clinician with my state, but unless they tell us to communicate a specific situation we are asked to share, but this has rarely if ever come up outside of the year the POE was mentioned. I have also worked all my basketball state finals since that POE. We have a meeting before every State Final Tournament and go over all the new rules and POEs and mechanic requirements and I do not recall either the Head Clinician who runs the meeting or the Sports Administrator (in charge of the event and everything goes through him, which includes interpretations and all officiating procedures for that sport) emphasizing this topic.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You reference IAABO and others reference IAABO as to when that organization says something, the buck stops there.

Thus my usual disclaimer: " ... which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum".

And how many times have I posted, "When in Rome ..."?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thus my usual disclaimer: " ... which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum".

And how many times have I posted, "When in Rome ..."?

If you say all of that, then you would let some of that go. You keep talking about the NF's position as if they do not have their member states give interpretations which is often local anyway.

Peace

[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]

For the good of the cause, while I do have some belief that old Points of Emphasis, vanished casebook plays, and annual one-time only interpretations are still valid as long as there are no relevant rule changes or interpretation changes to invalidate such (and that some casebook interpretations may be dropped from the casebook due to page limitations, or inadvertent oversights), it isn't a strong belief (I deliberately don't mention the contact above the shoulders POE to my new official trainees), and it's not a hill that I'm willing to die on.

I have genuinely questioned the validity of my belief, and the belief of IAABO.

Specifically in regard to contact above the shoulders, the IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters have indicated as recently as January, 2021 that the Point of Emphasis is still valid. They're responsible for educating 15,000 basketball officials, including me, thus a pretty high position of authority (which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum).

I have questioned them about any conflict between their validation of this POE, and the validation by the NFHS.

If I didn't have any doubts, why would I be questioning them?

Many of you are showing frustration and don't seem to realize that your'e mostly preaching to the choir, and that I've taken the position of the Devil's Advocate.

I'll follow up with you guys after the Fall Seminar in a few weeks. Hopefully I will have more than just an IAABO interpretation (hill of beans) but a NFHS interpretation.

After this post I will send a followup email to the IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters, reminding them that I plan to question them in regard to the NFHS position on these topics (as well as the new NFHS shot clock guidelines regarding the start of the shot clock and the start of the ten second count).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

After this post I will send a followup email to the IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters, reminding them that I plan to question them in regard to the NFHS position on these topics (as well as the new NFHS shot clock guidelines regarding the start of the shot clock and the start of the ten second count).

I got a reply to my email.

The IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters will meet with the NFHS basketball rules editor on September 23, 2021 and old Points of Emphasis, vanished casebook plays, and annual one-time only interpretations will be discussed.

Specifically regarding the 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Point Of Emphasis, one of the Co-Coordinators served on the most recent NFHS rules committee and "swinging elbows" was discussed resulting in three new casebook plays to be added to the 2021-22 NFHS Casebook:

4.19.3 SITUATION F: After a rebound, A1, while holding the ball, pivots and A1’s elbow contacts B1 above the shoulders. A1's elbow is violently and excessively swung at a speed in excess of the player’s torso. RULING: If the contact is violent or excessive, a flagrant foul shall be called. (4-27, 4-19-2, 4-19-3, 4-19-4)

9.13.1 SITUATION B: A1 is trapped in the corner by B1 and B2, who are in legal guarding position. In an attempt to create space, A1 rapidly swings arms/elbows while using the shoulders as pivots (a) without making contact; (b) making contact with an opponent above the shoulders and elbows are moving faster than the body. RULING: In (a), A1 excessively swinging arms/elbows without contacting the opponent is a violation. Team B is awarded a designated spot throw-in nearest the violation. In (b), this is considered an intentional foul. (9-13-1)

9.13.2 SITUATION: A5 catches the ball on a rebound, “chins” the ball and then turns (with the elbow at the same speed as the body) to make an outlet pass with the elbow leading the way. Prior to releasing the ball, A1’s elbow contacts B5 above the shoulders. RULING: This may be ruled incidental contact or a player control foul.

One of the old POE parameters isn't interpreted the same as it was in the old POE (an elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul), but the new casebook plays are a good reminder that player safety should be a high priority, and that officials should, and often must, consider upgrades for contact to the head.

Of course, as usual, and always, when in Rome ...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I got a reply to my email.

The IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters will meet with the NFHS basketball rules editor on September 23, 2021 and old Points of Emphasis, vanished casebook plays, and annual one-time only interpretations will be discussed.

Specifically regarding the 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Point Of Emphasis, one of the Co-Coordinators served on the most recent NFHS rules committee and "swinging elbows" was discussed resulting in three new casebook plays to be added to the 2021-22 NFHS Casebook:

4.19.3 SITUATION F: After a rebound, A1, while holding the ball, pivots and A1’s elbow contacts B1 above the shoulders. A1's elbow is violently and excessively swung at a speed in excess of the player’s torso. RULING: If the contact is violent or excessive, a flagrant foul shall be called. (4-27, 4-19-2, 4-19-3, 4-19-4)

9.13.1 SITUATION B: A1 is trapped in the corner by B1 and B2, who are in legal guarding position. In an attempt to create space, A1 rapidly swings arms/elbows while using the shoulders as pivots (a) without making contact; (b) making contact with an opponent above the shoulders and elbows are moving faster than the body. RULING: In (a), A1 excessively swinging arms/elbows without contacting the opponent is a violation. Team B is awarded a designated spot throw-in nearest the violation. In (b), this is considered an intentional foul. (9-13-1)

9.13.2 SITUATION: A5 catches the ball on a rebound, “chins” the ball and then turns (with the elbow at the same speed as the body) to make an outlet pass with the elbow leading the way. Prior to releasing the ball, A1’s elbow contacts B5 above the shoulders. RULING: This may be ruled incidental contact or a player control foul.

One of the old POE parameters isn't interpreted the same as it was in the old POE (an elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul), but the new casebook plays are a good reminder that player safety should be a high priority, and that officials should, and often must, consider upgrades.

Of course, as usual, and always, when in Rome ...

Great, the all important status of a 2012-13 POE is now moot.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I got a reply to my email.

The IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters will meet with the NFHS basketball rules editor on September 23, 2021 and old Points of Emphasis, vanished casebook plays, and annual one-time only interpretations will be discussed.

Specifically regarding the 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Point Of Emphasis, one of the Co-Coordinators served on the most recent NFHS rules committee and "swinging elbows" was discussed resulting in three new casebook plays to be added to the 2021-22 NFHS Casebook:

4.19.3 SITUATION F: After a rebound, A1, while holding the ball, pivots and A1’s elbow contacts B1 above the shoulders. A1's elbow is violently and excessively swung at a speed in excess of the player’s torso. RULING: If the contact is violent or excessive, a flagrant foul shall be called. (4-27, 4-19-2, 4-19-3, 4-19-4)

9.13.1 SITUATION B: A1 is trapped in the corner by B1 and B2, who are in legal guarding position. In an attempt to create space, A1 rapidly swings arms/elbows while using the shoulders as pivots (a) without making contact; (b) making contact with an opponent above the shoulders and elbows are moving faster than the body. RULING: In (a), A1 excessively swinging arms/elbows without contacting the opponent is a violation. Team B is awarded a designated spot throw-in nearest the violation. In (b), this is considered an intentional foul. (9-13-1)

9.13.2 SITUATION: A5 catches the ball on a rebound, “chins” the ball and then turns (with the elbow at the same speed as the body) to make an outlet pass with the elbow leading the way. Prior to releasing the ball, A1’s elbow contacts B5 above the shoulders. RULING: This may be ruled incidental contact or a player control foul.

One of the old POE parameters isn't interpreted the same as it was in the old POE (an elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul), but the new casebook plays are a good reminder that player safety should be a high priority, and that officials should, and often must, consider upgrades.

Of course, as usual, and always, when in Rome ...

I have no issues with any of these. Seems like it is addressed and specific. That is all some of us were asking. So as said, we can put to bed a POE in 2012-2013. I looked these up and they are in the books.

Now we can end this part of the discussion.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I will send a followup email to the IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters, reminding them that I plan to question them in regard to the NFHS position on these topics (as well as the new NFHS shot clock guidelines regarding the start of the shot clock and the start of the ten second count).

Got another reply to my email.

It appears that the NFHS basketball committee is presently undergoing massive changes (including leadership) and the NFHS (through IAABO) may not be able to address these issues (vanishing casebook plays) in a timely manner before the IAABO Fall Seminar in a few weeks.

I have been assured by all four of the IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters that with one of them having seat at the table for next year's NFHS basketball committee, this will be a high priority item and it will definitely be on the agenda for next year. There might possibly be a searchable online casebook with all valid interpretations, both past, and present.

As to the new NFHS shot clock guidelines regarding the start of the shot clock and the start of the ten second count, IAABO International will not deal with this and will allow each IAABO state to deal with this on a state by state basis, but the IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters do agree with me that this is a rule/mechanic conflict needs to somehow be accounted for, but again, it will be on a state by state basis.

Some good news, at least we solved the strange case of the vanishing Contact Above the Shoulders Point of Emphasis, so something was accomplished, better than nothing accomplished.

Looks like I'll have more time to spend in the open bar hospitality room. Too bad that I don't regularly play golf.

Free alcohol, golf (with side bets), and highly competitive basketball officials, all far way from home. What can possibly go wrong?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

I have no idea and not sure why you keep asking that question here. All I know is there have been several POEs involving Intentional and Flagrant Fouls and nothing was mentioned since 2011-2012 anything about how to call or rule on contact above the shoulders. So that tells me that either they had not felt they needed to take such a hard stand or they felt the rules already make it as clear as they wish how to rule on these plays. Or they could have just wanted states to address these situations directly as is their philosophy if you ask them about an interpretation.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Maybe they did not feel the POE addressed issues properly. Again, not sure why you think we know the answer? I was not ever on the NF Committee or have attended any of their meetings. I do not know why they do things they do. I work other sports and this is not the first time something is done and then they reverse course.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

I would assume if you intend something to stay or to be consistent, then you change the language or add wording to reflect your position.

Again you are asking the wrong people.

Peace