Strange Case Continued ...

[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

Sounds like you're trying to justify your teaching of "automatic" rulings to new officials without having current references to validate your interpretation.

I actually teach mechanics, not rules (although I have in the past). However, I do mentor inexperienced officials. If this issue (head contact) comes up, knowing that they don't have access to the POE (which may be invalid), I refer them to the current intentional foul, and flagrant foul, rules, and mention that they may consider upgrades for head contact, advice based on my knowledge of the Point of Emphasis (degree of swinging elbows) without mentioning any "automatic" part.

[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 Raymond

Have you ever considered that it is no longer a problem?

Yes I have (we've already mentioned this in the thread). Maybe a reason why it didn't return again. Maybe we did, and still do, what the NFHS wanted.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I actually teach mechanics, not rules. However, I do mentor inexperienced officials. If this issue (head contact) comes up, knowing that they don't have access to the POE (which may be invalid), I refer them to the current intentional foul, and flagrant foul, rules, and mention that they may consider upgrades for head contact, advice based on my knowledge of the Point of Emphasis (degree of swinging elbows) without mentioning any "automatic" part.

You could teach them how to adjudicate that without referencing an out of date citation. You could just explain to them that certain contact to the head needs to be addressed differently than your run-of-the-mill foul. You could just tell them "around these parts we use certain guidelines to judge how the call should be made."

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You could teach them how to adjudicate that without referencing an out of date citation. You could just explain to them that certain contact to the head needs to be addressed differently than your run-of-the-mill foul. You could just tell them "around these parts we use certain guidelines to judge how the call should be made."

Maybe I wasn't exactly clear, that's what I do.

Because I'm old I know of the intent of the NFHS to decrease head contact, and I know of an old POE that described upgrades. I mention to them that they may want to consider upgrades involving contact to the head resulting from moving elbows (excessive, or not), without actually citing the POE, and never mentioning anything about anything being automatic, as implied in the POE.

While I still accept the POE for myself (until told otherwise), I'm not stupid, I know that the POE is both old, controversial, and possibly invalid, so I just tell them to consider an upgrade as allowed under the current rule language (intentional, flagrant) for circumstances involving contact to the head resulting from moving elbows (excessive, or not). Don't want the young'uns to get stuck on a ladder step (or fall off) because they have a old coot like me as a mentor. Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we teach "around" the POE (purpose and intent).

[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 JRutledge

... Not even your beloved IAABO references any such thing in their video segments ...

Disclaimer: Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum. It is only posted in response to JRutledge's recent post.

IAABO Make The Call Video, January 20, 2021

IAABO Play Commentary Correct Answer: This is an intentional foul. If a player swings elbows excessively, (faster than the rest of the player’s torso), and contacts an opponent, it is at a minimum an intentional foul. If the contact is severe or the player ‘measures up’ the opponent, it is flagrant. (2012-13 POE) In this play, Red #35 swings her elbows in at a pace that exceeds the speed of the torso. This should be ruled an intentional personal foul. Officials only have rules support to rule this incidental contact or a common foul (player control foul) if the player's elbow was stationary when the contact occurred. (2012-13 POE)

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1041036

[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.

[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?

[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).

[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.