Strange Case Continued ...

[Robert Goodman]

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.

I'd consider it an inexcusable flaw of rules writing to have a point of emphasis apply to any edition it doesn't appear in. Points of emphasis usually take up little space in a rule book, so if you wanted it to go on applying in subsequent editions, what's the point of removing it from them?

To me a POE is just a statement by a supervisory body to the effect, "Our experience in recent time has been that officials have not been administering this the way we intended or expected. Maybe they've even forgotten about it. We don't think there's anything wrong with how we wrote it, such that we could make it more explicit, but please take the following into account...." If that statement no longer appears in subsequent editions, that says to me that the body has at least reconsidered its importance.

There's a long-term problem with emphasis in that you can't emphasize everything, or it's no longer "emphasis". That being the case, the disappearance of a POE means it's at least no longer a priority (to make room for something else). But if writing something as a POE to actually [U]change or amplify the meaning[U] of something substantively, they're usurping the function of a POE, and when it disappears, that different meaning disappears with it. How else is somebody supposed to read an edition of the rules -- as mere suggestions? Hints on play of the game?

Maybe we should start a thread on POEs in the General section, since it would apply to all sports.

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

Does Fed use that language, i.e. "swinging elbows", not further defining "swinging"? Because using my non-basketball-official's understanding of swinging an elbow, I wouldn't even see that player as doing that. From football at least, but also ordinary talk, I think of somebody's swinging an elbow as moving it in approximately a horizontal plane, with the hands kept in approximately the same position. If the elbows are held out from the body and hands, I would see swinging the hips or pivoting the feet, not as mitigating factors, but exacerbating ones. I'm familiar with players in basketball abusively clearing out space like that in a circle around them after coming down with a rebound, sometimes seemingly crouched over the ball.

Here I see a player bringing the ball up with both hands from hip height to overhead, and the elbows are held out no farther than normal in doing so. An opponent who'd be barely visible, and certainly not his focus of attention, to the player making that move happens to get his chin in the way of that upward motion.

If Fed wants that player's actions to be a foul in basketball, fine, but if they expect someone to recognize that from the phrase "swinging elbows", then I see a problem.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Does Fed use that language, i.e. "swinging elbows", not further defining "swinging"?

4-24-8: It is not legal to swing arms and elbows excessively. This occurs when:
a. 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.
b. The aggressiveness with which the arms and elbows are swung could cause injury to another player if contacted.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

4-24-8: It is not legal to swing arms and elbows excessively. This occurs when:
a. 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.
b. The aggressiveness with which the arms and elbows are swung could cause injury to another player if contacted.

You do realize that you can hit someone with an elbow without swinging the elbow? Do you realize that at other levels there have been parameters for when or how you can legally move your body or elbows and not be responsible for that contact in a flagrant or above common foul way? You keep focusing on when someone swings an elbow and if I recall the POE was about contact above the shoulders, not just swinging elbows. So that means if you slapped at the ball and hit someone in the face, that could be addressed as an intentional or flagrant foul. That is why the NCAA got rid of the all-or-nothing standard of contact with the elbow and had to address some reasonable situations to rule a common foul if there is elbow contact that was just incidental.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You do realize that you can hit someone with an elbow without swinging the elbow? ... if I recall the POE was about contact above the shoulders, not just swinging elbows. So that means if you slapped at the ball and hit someone in the face, that could be addressed as an intentional or flagrant foul.

JRutledge is correct, it does address all contact (swinging, or not) above the shoulder, but it mostly deals with swinging, both excessive, and not excessive. It also deals with other types of above the shoulder contact as incidental (legal, no foul), or a common foul.

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... the 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Points Of Emphasis deals with, for the most part, swinging (excessively or not excessively) elbows that make contact with an opponent above the shoulders? This sounds like a minor part of the Point Of Emphasis. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We know there are situations that incidental contact takes place and rule accordingly. Or just call a common foul for contact in other instances.

As one should according to the POE.

It even reminds us that swinging elbows excessively with no contact is not a foul, but can be a violation.

Too bad the NFHS didn't followup with rule changes spelling out the various options (maybe nothing "automatic", possibly using the word "consider", as I do when training), it's a nice little safety Point of Emphasis reminder, that shouldn't be flushed down the toilet. Of course, some say that you can't shine s..t.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I'd consider it an inexcusable flaw of rules writing to have a point of emphasis apply to any edition it doesn't appear in.

Agree. NFHS dropped the ball on this one.

As others have commented, this was probably a knee-jerk reaction to concussions, and not very well thought out.

Stupid NFHS.

[BillyMac]

Can any Forum members think of any other examples of old Points of Emphasis, vanished casebook plays, or annual one-time only interpretations that we have debated the validity of here on the Forum?