Strange Case Continued ...

[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?

[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

[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

[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

[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

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

[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 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.

[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).

[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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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 ... Maybe they did not feel the POE addressed issues properly ... not the first time something is done and then they reverse course.

Agree. I sure would like to know.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, not sure why you think we know the answer? Again you are asking the wrong people.

I don't think the Forum knows the answer. I know the Forum is the "wrong people" (and I'm not asking). I was only asking for examples of such controversial issues, never intended to debate such issues, but got sucked into the black hole of debate anyway.

Originally Posted by 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? I would like to present additional examples regarding this issue to the IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters.

Originally Posted by Raymond

Is there verbiage in the NFHS rule book that contradicts this ruling?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

My purpose of my thread is not to debate the validity of two specific examples that I have presented. We've been through such debates dozens of times in the past on the Forum, with logical, and rational opinions offered on both sides.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Didn't want to debate specific examples, but since I've been sucked into this debate black hole, I might as well put in my two cents.

[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

[Raymond]

POEs are for the season for which the rule book is written. They are written because the rules makers don't feel officials are properly or consistently enforcing a particular rule.

Why would a POE stay in the book every year? I'll repeat this again, but an effective POE is supposed to disappear.

Are we going to question every single POE that has disappeared? Why are we stuck on this one?

And I wish you would quit with this devil's advocate mission you seem to have assigned to yourself. We don't need a devil's advocate. We are intelligent people who know how to ask questions if we don't understand or want clarification. We don't need you running interference. To me when you ask these questions and create these debates, it's because you need clarification. Stop feeling like you're speaking for some silent minority who's afraid to speak for themselves.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk