Strange Case Continued ...

[Raymond]

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.

Where I work, HS and NCAA, we are expected to use CURRENT rule book language in explaining adjudication of plays. A good veteran official will train younger officials how to handle situations in a common sense manner that can be supported by the current rule book/case plays/published interpretation.

That includes how to handle contact to the head and neck area. Good trainers and veteran officials will teach new officials how the current language in 4-19-3 and 4-19-4 can be used to justify the local expectations on those plays.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Good trainers and veteran officials will teach new officials how the current language in 4-19-3 and 4-19-4 can be used to justify the local expectations on those plays.

Agree. My local IAABO and IAABO (according to You Make The Call video) use the Point of Emphasis.

When in Rome ...