Strange Case Continued ...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Billy thinks you're not allowed to use any type of nonverbal communication that is not documented in a manual somewhere.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

He must have been really upset when we used the kicking signal before it was approved by the NF.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... we used the kicking signal before it was approved by the NF.

Didn't we all?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Didn't we all?

I would think not since IAABO would ding you.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I would think not since IAABO would ding you.

IAABO didn't start publishing a mechanics manual until 2004-05. It was rumored that it was due to NFHS licencing fees. Previous to that, IAABO used NFHS mechanics (and signals).

The NFHS finally "approved" the kick signal in 2003-04, and IAABO followed suit in its first mechanics manual in 2004-05, so there was never an IAABO unapproved kick signal.

Before that, like many other officials all over the country, officials in my little corner of Connecticut were NFHS rebels, proudly using the "unapproved" kick signal any damn time we felt like it, throwing caution to the wind. I was tranied to use it over forty years ago.

[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 ...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Didn't we all?

Based on your position, it seems like you didn't use it or would not use it.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Based on your position, it seems like you didn't use it or would not use it.

I almost always do what the local assigner and/or the local interpreter in my little corner of Connecticut tells me to do.

While guidance from the Connecticut State IAABO Board (our interscholastic sports governing body (CIAC) works through the State Board, not directly with individual of officials), IAABO International, and the NFHS is important, they're not as important as my local board.

The Connecticut State IAABO Board, IAABO International, and the NFHS do not control one moving up or down the ladder in my little corner of Connecticut, my local board does.

“As our Founders clearly stated … government closest to the people governs best.” (Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell)

"All politics is local.” (Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Tip O'Neill)

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Based on your position, it seems like you didn't use it or would not use it.

My recent comments regarding the use of a common NFHS language only applies to language crossing local, or state boundaries, as in language used in the Forum, and in Referee Magazine.

To use local, or state language instead of NFHS language when such language crosses local, or state boundaries (the Forum, Referee Magazine) can often lead to confusion unless properly noted.

[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 Raymond

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

It appears so because it's been changed.



Situations involving contact above the shoulders are now in the casebook, as a supplement to the rulebook definitions of intentional fouls and flagrant fouls, where it probably should have been (or the rulebook) in the first place.

Now we've got something to show young'un officials and coaches.

Stupid NFHS. Always a dime short, and nine years too late.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is pretty universal not to wear a belt. We do not have to go around telling people not to do this, they can look and figure that out. But if they need training on the subject we direct them in the right direction.

The better to "pants" the officials on their way out? I gotta learn how this one started.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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 ... Now we can end this part of the discussion.

Break out the champagne (or the sparkling wine for those of us on a fixed income, or the sparkling cider for the teetotalers).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

JRutledge's most ridiculous post ever (I will apologize to JRutledge if moderators think I was over the top).

Any forum? Maybe (I don't participate in other forums except the Official Forum, except for an occasional You Tube event).

But in regard to the Official Forum? What has JRutledge been reading all these years?

The Forum is quite often about details.

Most officials are not people we see on this forum. And if you just look at this forum specifically, only a handful of people participate this compared to what I might see at an association meeting. Most officials do not come to social media sites of any kind to discuss officiating. It is becoming more common, but not something that officials do on a regular basis. How do I know? Because I can discuss things with officials and certain officials are even unaware that things were being discussed about a rule. I have pushed people for years to come to forums like this, but most do not watch them. Even my Officiating Born pages, it is usually younger and newer officials that are familiar with the platforms that use them. I have older guys even around my age that did not know I had a play library. So no, it is not something that most people do (Rome or not). Again the only place I have had this constant conversation about this POE is from this specific place. Not heavily discussed anywhere else that I go. I do not mind these discussions or this site, because I have been on them almost my entire career. Way before Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, or TickToc when the internet was new and a novelty to many. People did not even normally have the internet at home other than a dial-up connection back then. I am the moderator of a few local association groups on Facebook and we hardly have membership participation in those situations because people are even unaware we use them. Again the average age of officials is over 50 here and most of the people that use those forums are much younger in age.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

The better to "pants" the officials on their way out? I gotta learn how this one started.

There is a pretty universal standard in officiating in multiple sports that you buy things that are fitted. Same in football as no one would dare buy a hat that is not fitted (or adjustable). Same when I was a baseball umpire, you wore fitted hats. And there were other things you just did not do to look or appear like this was a profession, not a hobby. Some things have changed over the years, but not unusual. I wore a belt I believe my first year when I first started and bought pants at Wal-Mart. Quickly was told to not do that to look like you take this seriously and have not looked back. Similar to when they started requiring the collared shirt to go away. I started at the time when this changed within a year and people did not look back.

Peace