Strange Case Continued ...
 

For some reason I got locked out of the original thread.

Thanks JRutledge. Great video to interpret contact above the shoulders.

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.

Contact above shoulders? Yes. Elbow to chin.

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

Type of foul? A moving elbow that is excessively swinging that results in contact above shoulders can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

My interpretation: Intentional excessive contact foul. Close, but not quite violent enough to be a flagrant foul.

4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to: Excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live

4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent nature involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing.

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.

How will an inexperienced official interpret this with no current rulebook containing the 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Points Of Emphasis?

Hopefully, he would have had a great trainer who covered this situation during the training classes.

Failing that, the inexperienced official would have to make his interpretation solely based on 4-129-3 and 4-19-4.

Stupid NFHS.

Announcers ...
 

It was only in the rulebbok because it was a Point of Emphasis that year, as with all annual Points of Emphasis. And there was a NF Power Point, as with all annual Points of Emphasis.

Was it in the actual rule part of the rulebook and more importantly, is it still the rulebook?

Paywall Video ...
 

Can't see the video. Some type of pay wall. I'm retired and live on a fixed income.

I might edit that video and post it on my OB page. I was just trying to avoid having to deal with the NCAA or CBS on that one.

Peace

Two Reasons ...
 

Agree. Only brought it up because both are old Points of Emphasis that never made their way into the rulebooks, two of your reasons for declaring such Points of Emphasis invalid, null, and void, which I believe that they aren't.

Broke The Internet ???
 

Anybody else having a problem? Did I finally do it? Did I finally post too many posts and break the Official Forum?

The purpose of a POE is to EMPHASIZE a rule, not re-write it. A POE should directly reference verbiage in a rule. This 2013 POE you keep referencing did not reference any existing rules verbiage. If that's what the NFHS wants adjudicated, then they need to add language to the 4-19-3 and 4-19-4 concerning contact to the head specifically. Maybe if they wrote the rules they wanted it interpreted and adjudicated the wouldn't have needed a POE.

One and Done ...
 

Agree. I believe that the NFHS dropped the ball on this one.

Because the NFHS decided to go the Point Emphasis route instead of the rule change route, does that automatically make this Point of Emphasis invalid, null, and void after only one year in the "book"?

Preaching To The Choir ...
 

Preaching to the choir, and JRutledge and I are both in the choir (I'm a tenor).

Again, does that automatically make this Point of Emphasis invalid, null, and void after only one year in the rulebook?

As far as I'm concerned, yes. I don't study old rule books. I officiate by the current rules and case plays. When I'm in the locker room discussing plays and situations from games I'm working or about to work, I pull out what's current.

They Don't Know What They Don't Know ...
 

Good point.

But there are other ways of becoming good official beside reading current books, like listening to veteran trainers. But you do make a valid point, a point that I believe is shared by JRutlelge, his point also being valid, yet I still disagree with both respected Forum members. I can't (and shouldn't) ignore something that I'm aware of. Inexperienced officials are another story, they don't know what they don't know.

Swinging Elbows ...
 

Great question.

Did the contact involve a swinging elbow, because that's what 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.

I do not see that as excessive at all and can make a case the contact was with mostly the chest then the head and neck area. He does not even have a bent elbow that was used, he is just turning. But the point is nothing in the current rule says that this is an intentional or even flagrant foul just because of where you contact them.

The NCAA has got even more specific and this could have been ruled a cylinder play at that level. One reason, the defender is supposed to give the ball handler room to move or pivot naturally. This is the thing, the NCAA used to have any elbow hitting an opponent as a Flagrant Foul (similar to targeting in football). If you deemed that took place in a monitor review, it was considered a Flagrant Foul no matter the circumstances for the most part. Well, they got rid of that because it made no damn sense. You were getting players just doing normal stuff and getting an upgrade that often was not even seen but on replay. So that is one of the reasons I do not like the NF position then (if that is even the position) because the game has evolved and addressed these issues in other codes. The rule cannot be so black and white on a grey type of play. And we have no monitor either?

Peace

I am a veteran trainer. I'm also someone looked to by multiple supervisors to research rules (NCAA and NFHS) to provide answers to coaches and ADs who send in inquiries. They want references from the CURRENT rules in place.

You DO NOT become a good official by substituting outdated citations for what is currently in place. I tell younger officials all the time to watch out who you listen to. #1 on that list for me are veteran officials who do not keep current on rules and instead go by what they remember reading somewhere in 2013 or whatever year they last decided to study the rules.

Where You Contact Them ...
 

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.

Yes, it makes it invalid. Yes, there is no way easily to reference something to most people that cannot see it in the current rulebook. It is noted if you have nothing there to contradict an old interpretation, but how in the world can I reference something and I do not even know what year it was made? Other than these conversations on this site, I did not even know what year the POE took place. I do not keep those old rulebooks readily available and the app does not go back to old rulebooks either. To me it is silly to keep referencing these as the standard and the NF never changed or added any reference to this application of the rules. Heck they do not even talk about it in the NASO publications or constantly telling us how these are apart of intentional foul rulings. Most officials I know never heard of this site or would never come here if they do. We cannot rely on a very small part to expect everyone else to follow that logic.

Peace

One And Done ???
 

Agree. Now define outdated.

It's one thing for Raymond, or JRutledge to say that a citation is outdated (that may be true), but it's another thing for the NFHS to say that something is outdated (that is true).

Does the NFHS still want to decrease contact above the shoulders? Has that changed? I doubt it.

So exactly when did the NFHS (not Raymond, or JRutledge) want this citation to become outdated? One and done? Two years? More?

It is not about what one believes. IT is about what they will find when looking right now. This reference is almost 10 years old. That means many officials, coaches and players were not around when such POE was put out. And you want me to send a coach a ruling based on some rulebook that has been reproduced almost 10 times? And never referenced in any publications about the very thing we are talking about? This play happens often enough that if that was the expected ruling, I think we would have heard something from someone on the NF committee or the publications they produce in many forms.

Peace

When ...
 

And when exactly did it become invalid? One and done? Is that what the NFHS intended when it tried to decease contact above the shoulders?

I do not want it to become anything. I would think that if you have made Intentional Fouls a POE and talked about all kinds of situations where we shoudl call one, you would at least keep up the same interpretation every time you have referenced intentional and flagrant fouls. Just last year this was the case and no reference to calling anything special or different. Not even your beloved IAABO references any such thing in their video segments that NASO puts out. So if they want something to "stop" then put it somewhere so we can refer to it when that is the reason we call something like that. Other than that, I take it can be incidental or common foul in nature just like the rules currently support. You tried to argue with me what was said about handchecking but cannot reference what rule says contact above the head and shoulders is automatically an intentional or flagrant foul.

Peace

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.

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.

It became invalid when it was no longer published and they chose not to include the verbiage in succeeding rules and case books. By your logic, in 2052 we should still being using t as a reference.

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

You Don't Know What You Don't Know ...
 

Again, if one is aware of the point of emphasis, use it. If one isn't aware, don't use it.

JRutledge and Raymond may be correct. Hopefully I'll find out in a few weeks, if not from the NFHS, then from IAABO, which obviously won't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

IAABO did recently use this Point of Emphasis in one of their You Make The Call Videos.

Invalid ...
 

Raymond's common sense definition of invalid, or the NFHS's definition?

Odd that the NFHS should bother to publish a safety related Point of Emphasis that it only intended to emphasize for only one year.

Not In Current Rulebook ...
 

Correct.

I have already acknowledged several times that I know such is not in the current rulebook, just generic definitions of intentional and flagrant fouls.

I'm solely going by the Point of Emphasis.

Point Of Emphasis ...
 

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

When in Rome ...

Nfhs ...
 

I was asking about the NFHS, not you.

Credibility ...
 

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?

Have you ever considered that it is no longer a problem? Have ever considered that they feel the rules as currently written are adequate to handle that situation? Have you ever considered they feel that localities are doing a good job deeming certain contact to the head as excessive contact and certain contact as normal basketball plays and they don't need to spell it out for the good folks in your corner of Connecticut?

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.

Not Automatic ...
 

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.

Center Circle ...
 

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?

Still Do ...
 

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.

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

Consider ...
 

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).

Unsporting Announcers ...
 

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.

Change Clock Without Definite Knowledge ...
 

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.

IAABO Make The Call Video ...
 

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

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.
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.

Swinging Elbows ...
 

Dropped The Ball ...
 

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.

Other Examples ...
 

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?

Inadvertent Editorial Oversight ...
 

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).

Connecticut Only ...
 

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

Standard ...
 

"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

Incidental Or Common 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.

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.

Educational Organization
 

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.

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.

Not A Hill I'm Willing To Die On ...
 

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).

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.

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.

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

The Black Hole Of Debate ...
 

Agree. I sure would like to know.

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.

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

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

You Actually Think That I Don't Know That ???
 

Thus my usual disclaimer: " ... which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum".

And how many times have I posted, "When in Rome ..."?

Supposed To Disappear ...
 

Agree. Well stated. This is different because it doesn't even match the rules language for the season in which it appeared, equating fouls to certain body parts to certain penalties (I'm agreeing with JRutledge). It's not in the rules language, only in the Point of Emphasis, that, as Raymond so elegantly stated, properly disappeared. Thus the only citation we have that equates fouls to certain body parts to certain penalties has disappeared.

Stupid NFHS.

I do not think that POEs are just for what officials are not doing right. I think there are situations that need to be clarified to all participants. Of course we are to enforce rules and are more likely to look at the rules. But I do believe that there are things that coaches teach that are misunderstandings. I only say this because having been a football, baseball and softball umpire in my career, it seems like they are covering things that cause a lot of conflict with coaches and officials.

I think the reason the NF has now addressed Euro Steps and Spin Moves, is because coaches get really upset when you call these situations as violations. They do not realize that because it has a "name" it does not mean they are executed legally. I cannot tell you how many times I have called a traveling on a spin move and you would think I had never read a rulebook in my life based on the reaction of the coach and the fans. Then they tell you things that are not related to our rules.

Peace

If you say all of that, then you would let some of that go. You keep talking about the NF's position as if they do not have their member states give interpretations which is often local anyway.

Peace

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/xUOwG2e035ksoCIQlq" width="480" height="270" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/reaction-amen-church-muva-xUOwG2e035ksoCIQlq">via GIPHY</a></p>

Peace

Rosetta Stone ...
 

All Forum members don't speak IAABO language. We all don't speak Connecticut language. We all don't speak Illinois language.

But we do all speak NFHS language, it's the Rosetta Stone of basketball officiating.

Yes, local language could, can, does, and should override NFHS language, but to use such local language on the Forum, with no disclaimers, would turn the Forum into the Tower of Babel, making it difficult to get anything accomplished.

I would never state on the Forum that one is allowed to wear a black belt with one's uniform without also stating that this may only true in my little corner of Connecticut, it may not even be true for the entire state.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.P...=0&w=274&h=168

Can I Get An Amen ...
 

Let me get my church fan.

Pregame Situations ...
 

2011-12 Points Of Emphasis Sporting Behavior
The NFHS Basketball Rules Committee continues to be concerned about the following behavior:
Pregame Situations. Teams entering the gymnasium prior to the contest should not run through the area occupied by the opposing team or under the basket where opponents are warming up. Teams should only enter, jog or warm-up on their own half of the court. Gatherings intended to motivate a team after the warm-up period, during or following player introductions and post-game celebrations should be performed in the area directly in front of the team bench. If during the pregame or half-time warm-up period one team leaves the floor, the other team should not use the entire court; teams should only warm-up on their half of the court. Only authorized personnel should be permitted on the floor. All spectators should be in designated areas.

Our biggest problem here in Connecticut was visitors spitting in the center circle on the logo during pregame introductions and claiming that they were only doing so to clean the bottoms of their shoes.

Announcer Responsibilities ...
 

2014-15 Points Of Emphasis
The announcer shall be prohibited from making an announcement while the clock is running and while the clock is stopped and the ball is live…such as during a free throw, a throw-in, etc. Doing so could potentially affect communication of coaches or players, or could be disconcerting.
• The announcer shall be prohibited from interrupting the game through the use of the
microphone unless there is an emergency.
• Announcements or comments shall be made during those times when there is a stoppage of
the clock and the ball is not live, such as time-outs, between quarters, pre-game, half time
and post-game.
• The announcer is allowed to announce basic information that does not potentially affect the
play in general, the players, the coaches or the officials. The announcer’s information is not
official information and could be misinformation shared with all.
• Appropriate training of announcers by school personnel and proper pregame instruction by
the referee are necessary.
May be announced - Examples:
• Player who scored
• Player charged with foul
• Player attempting free throw
• Team granted a time-out
• Length of time-out: 30 seconds or 60 seconds
• Player entering game
• Team rosters
Shall not be announced – Examples
• Number of points player scored
• Number of fouls on player
• Number of team fouls
• Number of team time-outs or number remaining
• Time remaining in the quarter/game
• Type of foul or violation
• Emphatic two-point or three-point field goal
The announcer’s role does not include “cheering the home team on” or otherwise inciting the
crowd. Doing so is common at other levels of athletic events, but high school athletics is different
because sports are educationally based. In a very real sense, the public-address announcer at a
high school event is a “Champion of Character.” He/she can influence the atmosphere of the
contest by what is said and how it is said. The announcer who performs professionally promotes
good sportsmanship by what he/she says and how he/she acts upon saying it.

Also found this on my hard drive. Not sure of the source, it may be local, or state.

The National Federation has issued new guidelines regarding game announcers.

While the game is in progress, announcers may give basic information such as who scores, who fouls and how many fouls that is on a player, who is shooting free throws and how many free throws, which team is awarded a time out and whether the time out is a full time out or a 30 second time out, which substitute is entering the game and which player is being replaced.

Announcers should not announce things such as "How much time there is left in a period" or "How many time outs a team has left." Also, announcements pertaining to raffles, 50-50 drawings, concession stands, future schedules, etc - in other words, all those things that are not directly related to the game should only be announced prior to the game, during time outs, intermission, between periods, and after the game.

What they want eliminated are the "carnival barkers" that tend to distract from the actual game and those announcements that would tend to give information that is the responsibility of the teams and coaches (ie: how much time is left or how many time outs a team has remaining.). There is no penalty involved. Announcers should be handled the same as scorekeepers and timers who are not in compliance with the spirit of the game.

This information should be covered with the announcer at the table prior to the game.

Why Did It Disappear ???
 

Because one may see it in their game and want to adjudicate correctly?

10.6.1 Situation E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. Ruling: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down

Vanished from casebook in 2005-06, it goes back to at least 1996-97 (the oldest NFHS Rulebook in my library), so it was a NFHS interpretation for, at least, nine years, not a one hit wonder.

There were no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, in 2005-06, so why did it disappear?

NFHS decided to change the interpretation to a foul, but with no announcement?

Deleted due to limited space in the casebook?

Editorial mistake?

4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent ... Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

The rule hasn't changed. The language in the vanished caseplay still matches the rule language: Unless B1 made some effort (extending arm, leg, rolling, etc.) to trip or block A1, B1 is entitled to a position on the court even if B1 is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

But we can't show a coach, or a young'un official, the casebook citation? Abracadabra. It vanished.

But we can show a 4-23-1 rule citation. Is that enough to rule a legal play?

If so, why did the NFHS bother to have made it a casebook play in the first place? Somebody must have had a question about it?

Could the NFHS have decided to change this interpretation to a foul?

I have a ton of curiosity. The suspense is killing me. Plus, the next time this happens in my game, I want to get it right.

Maybe I''ll get some answers in a few weeks?

Just have to keep my head on straight and not spend too much time in the open bar hospitality room.

There is no "language" we just officiate. I do not care what people do around the country and certainly not states that I never see teams from those places. I just officiate.

I work with officials in multiple states from time to time. No one goes around talking about, "Well in Ohio we do....." We call the game and we use the language of the level we are working. You are making it very hard on yourself if you think there are things we do not do universally. Referee Magazine does not discuss officiating from only Wisconsin when they publish their materials.

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. Kind of like this topic you keep bringing up.

Peace

Post On The Forum ...
 

Officiate ... and post on the Forum.

We need some common language to communicate properly.

Deviating locally, or statewide, from NFHS rules and mechanics is fine, but only if one stays local, once one ventures and communicates outside of one's area, we need a common language to get anything accomplished, and lacking anything better, it NFHS language.

Most officials never come to any forum to discuss rules in detail. So not sure what language you are talking about related to one type of play or situation that most officials are not ruling on. That is not about language that is about understanding. Again if this is something you struggling with, talk with them in detail. Not sure why you are trying to get people here to agree with you?

Peace

Point To The Floor ...
 

Glad you added the qualifier "pretty", because not here. Had a guy wear a belt in a state final only a few years ago.

IAABO International tells us beltless pants. We're a rebel outlier.

Statewide, we point to floor for a two point field goal try when the shooter has a foot touching three point line. Not IAABO International approved. Again, we're a rebel outlier. If I were to describe this mechanic on the Forum, I would clearly state that it may be only a local (state) mechanic, never expecting anybody else to use it, or ask anybody else to approve of it.

Quibble About Single Words ...
 

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.

Sometimes we quibble about single words (i.e., "opponent" for distracting a free thrower).

I'm not. Just responding to, or answering, posts. My opinions only.

Don't really care a lot if anybody disagrees with me, but will graciously thank those who are able to change my mind with facts.

I'm always trying to improve my rules knowledge.

When in Rome ... trumps NFHS language, but only when in Rome.

But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth. (Genesis 11:5-9)

Wide Audience ...
 

Made my point. Thanks.

Because Referee Magazine has a wide audience, as does the Forum.

It can't publish articles about hundreds of areas with their own local rules or mechanics.

Who cares that in East Oshkosh, Wisconsin officials bounce the ball across the lane on frontcourt throwins (except for officials in East Oshkosh, Wisconsin)?

Only working one sport, I don't read Referee Magazine, but I would guess that it speaks NFHS language for high school rules.

Nor should anyone discuss local-only officiating here on the Forum without describing it as local-only.

Wait. "Nor should" is too strong. Sorry.

Discussing local-only officiating here on the Forum without describing it as local-only could lead to confusion, and hinder anything to be learned or accomplished.

Of course the big difference is that Referee Magazine will lose money if it only caters to a limited audience, the Forum won't.

Was never sure how the Forum makes money. No advertising. Who pays the electric bill? A billionaire benefactor?

Note: I made up the East Oshkosh, Wisconsin mechanic.

Again this shows this is your issue. There are people that can, do, and will ask questions if they are confused about something in multiple forums and social media places. They do in other national forums or places where officials do not only come from one place. And this forum is not what it used to be, so if you do not read Referee Magazine and you are not on Facebook or YouTube where all kinds of officiating rules and mechanics are discussed. I do not see anyone that confused by this and I have been in many officiating discussions on such places that are not my own.

Peace

Avocation ...
 

JRutledge is 100% correct. I do not participate in such.

IAABO does a great job presenting us with educational materials (the sole reason for its existence).

I have found the Official Forum to also be a great source of basketball officiating education.

Recently, I've been participating in Greg Austin's great live (and recorded) You Tube presentations. Shout out to Zoochy and Mike Goodwin.

Greg Austin's You Tube presentations speak to a very wide audience, so he always speaks NFHS, and will clarify if something is only statewide, or local (i.e., restrictive arc in Minnesota).

Probably doing more basketball rules study than 95-plus-% of my local colleagues. Probably why I'm one of the "go to" guys when someone has a rules question, and why I'm on the mechanics training committee.

That's enough for me. For me, basketball officiating is an avocation, not a vocation. Hard to believe, but I do have other interests.

Now I have to go out to my chicken coop and collect eggs, after that, the gym for forty minutes. Got a kayak race in a few weeks.

And I haven't read my Sunday newspaper yet. How bad did UCONN lose yesterday against Purdue?

There is always an official that is going to look silly. Heck there are officials that wear white-soled shoes with mostly black shoes, but that does not mean I see that on a regular basis. Didn't say it was absolutely forbidden at all costs. Just not something people look fondly on. I have seen officials wear belts at the State Finals here, but the guys are rather old and workding small girl's basketball. Not a dig, just the only time I have seen it happen.

That is a pretty universal thing at both the college and high school ranks. It is advocated to help any confusion and identify you saw the foot on the line and not have another official go up with a good 3 point shot. It would not consider this a state mechanic or even local thing. See officials do this all the time and not even sure this is mentioned in the CCA Book either. So not special to your little corner.

Peac

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

Belt And Suspenders ...
 

Agree. Did you watch the game? For my guy, he was a grizzled veteran, girls only, and retired right after he worked the final. When I train young'uns I tell them to do as I say, not as I do. Only wear beltless pants. It's a good look for a young guy, even better for a young gal.

Please tell that to my "bosses" at IAABO International. When the Grand Poobahs show up for our state finals , we get "dinged" every year.

Dinged ...
 

It is if you are observed by by IAABO International observers. We've been "dinged" in evaluations several times.

Stupid out-of-state carpetbaggers.

It would be so funny if the answer came back as "who knows and who cares? What is your question about interpreting the current rule and relevant case plays?"



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Do they pull you out of the game at halftime and replace you with a belted, veteran referee?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Vanished ...
 

Current rule says legal play. Rule hasn't changed since before, and after, 2005-06.

No more caseplay. Vanished into thin air.

Even though I'll probably risk falling into another debate black hole, what says Raymond?

Note: I have a feeling that the college rule may be different (or the same depending on what interpretation one believes) than the high school rule.

Hand Slapped ...
 

No. Worse. Even worse than double secret probation.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.C...=0&w=260&h=168

Hospitality ...
 

Sounds like someone who spent way too much time in the open bar hospitality room.

Belted, Grizzled Veteran ...
 

That's me, the belted, grizzled veteran. It would be my first state final, in fact, it would be my first state tournament game. Good reason for me to keep my bag in the car when I observe my "mates" working state tournament games (been hanging around with my Australian son-in-law too much).

Stupid Out-Of-State Carpetbaggers ...
 

Many years ago we were "dinged" by the IAABO out-of-state carpetbagging Grand Poobahs because we used a not-IAABO approved "not closely guarded" signal. Being the obedient, brown-nosing sheep that the Connecticut IAABO state board was back then, the entire State of Connecticut stopped using the signal. A few years later, IAABO added the same signal to their approved signal list.

Barbeque ...
 

Retired to South Carolina. He's still officiating. Not basketball. Barbeque contests. It's true. He's a fully trained and certified barbeque judge. Never heard of such a thing here in Connecticut.

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

Peace

Kick Me ...
 

Didn't we all?

I would think not since IAABO would ding you.

Proudly Use Kick Signal Any Damn Time We Feel Like It ...
 

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.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Z...=0&w=300&h=300

Update ...
 

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 ...

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

Peace

Locavore ...
 

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 ...

Common NFHS Language ...
 

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.

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

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