Statement ...
 

Already answered:

Even after that, without some type of searchable database, it will be the Wild Wild West out there.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.m...=0&w=216&h=167

What does believing you are not believing you have to do with any of this?

You understand the officiating world does not revolve around your little corner of Connecticut or this forum or you or Jeff or me?

Because I know you through a social media site I'm supposed to use you as a source? I'm supposed to feel like I'm personally offending you because I'm not going to cite you?

Are you seriously making this about believing you are not? That is very juvenile.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

No it won't be the wild West. It'll be what it had always been, an officiating world where state, local, or association-specific interpretations are used when there's ambiguity in the rule and case books and no current interpretations to address the issue have been published. It's always been like that around here and always will be.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

This whole conversation reminds me of the episode of The Office where Steve Carell's character walks out into the work center and proclaims "I declare bankruptcy!"

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I think you have your head so far up the behinds of the IAABO people, you do not know how it works with other states. I do not need to believe anything you say. And people in my neck of the woods do not care what happens "downstate" let alone what happens several states or organizations away. So it is not the Wild Wild Anything. States always do what they feel is best. If the NF wants a national application they have to do better than claim something applies and do not know how that information is going to be used.

Peace

Unnamed Sources ...
 

Absolutely not.

I would never use anyone on the Forum as an uncited source, nor would I expect anybody to use me as an uncited source.

But it could put a bug in one's ear to verify an idea that you all heard about from BillyMac and Camron Rust with one's local or state organization.

This thread was never intended to be a call to action. Never.

It was also intended to spark a discussion about the NFHS and vanishing interpretations, nothing more, nothing less.

The validity or invalidity of vanished interpretations has been discussed many times here on the Forum.

I just wanted to add something to the discussion.

Confusion ...
 

My metaphor of the Wild Wild West being likened to "confusion" obviously didn't achieve what I wanted it to achieve.

Now that you understand my metaphor, are you going to take back your earlier post?

I agree with this post above.

Must be a Connecticut, or a New England, thing, equating confusion to the Wild Wild West, because it crashed like a lead balloon here on the multi-state Forum.

All Politics Is Local (Tip O'Neill) ...
 

I'm actually on the fence as to whether the general statement by the NFHS (assuming it's true) alone is enough, or if a database is actually needed.

Leaving it up to local or state interpreters to decide if a vanished interpretation is valid because there have been no rule or interpretation changes, or invalid because there have been rule or interpretation changes; actually fits our mostly Forum shared philosophy of when in Rome ...

I'm still pleased that the NFHS will say (assuming it's true) that there is no actual statute of limitations on vanished interpretations, that the validity/invalidity of vanished interpretations will rest on rule or interpretation changes; not on whether it's in the current book, or not.

Keep in mind that the motto of IAABO is, "One rule. One interpretation". Connecticut is a 100% IAABO state. That's where my philosophies are from coming from.

Not better or worse, just different for me. Way different. Might as well be from Mars and written in Martian.

Talked with guy's this past weekend from Colorado, Arizona, New England, and many states in the Northeast. Some slight differences, but pretty much all on the same page, speaking the same IAABO/NFHS language about rules, interpretations, mechanics, and signals.

I always tell officials who are working for more than one supervisor or organization, you have to know who you're working for that night.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Noticeably absent is a statement on old Points of Emphasis.

Seems to me the whole point of "emphasis" is that what is not emphasized is de-emphasized, relatively. The more things are emphasized, the less anything is emphasized. Page limitations parallel the limitations of the mind to keep things in mind.

So I would assume by this statement that old POE cease to be POE.

Old Points Of Emphasis ...
 

If one is willing to believe my second hand account.

I chose not to mention the old Points of Emphasis issue because it didn't sound like Ms. Atkinson's eventual published written statement would actually include such and would just deal with old, sometimes vanished, interpretations, both annual interpretations, and vanished casebook plays.

However she did discuss such with our four IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters, and her philosophy regarding such was announced IAABO Fall Seminar. As long as there are no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, old Points of Emphasis are still officially considered to be valid by the NFHS.

The example given at the IAABO Fall Seminar was the example of team members running around opponents during layup lines, or gathering on the center circle logo during player introductions.

Also, the specific Point of Emphasis regarding contact above the shoulders was discussed with the NFHS basketball rules committee this past spring, broached by one of our IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters, who has a spot on the committee. As a result of his inquiry (valid/invalid) three new caseplays involving contact above the shoulders will be added to the 2021-22 NFHS Casebook.

Since the penalties in the new casebook plays are slightly different from the penalties in the Point of Emphasis, I consider this as an interpretation change, thus rendering this specific Point of Emphasis invalid, although while the specific penalties have slightly changed, the intent and purpose of the Point of Emphasis (preventing concussions) has not.

Since the continued validity of old Points of Emphasis will probably never show up in "published" written form, and since Forum members should trust but verify, this will be difficult to verify, so feel perfectly free to believe what one wants to believe.

http://img0.joyreactor.com/pics/post...sip-495842.png

So in your world, POE's just build on top of each other into infinite. So instead of EMPHASIZING 10 rules for a particular season, officials should also be EMPHASIZING every POE that was ever published.

I'm not sure how your approach is conducive to the rules committee's desire to have certain rules emphasized for that particular season. :confused:

"Hello study group, tonight we will be reviewing 1997's POEs"

Went To Fight And A Basketball Game Broke Out ...
 

While both of us have no easy way of verifying this, it's in the NFHS world, not just mine.

"Hello study group, after last week's pregame fight, tonight we will be reviewing pregame unsporting activity."

"Hello study group, due to a recent trend by some of our game announcers to act like cheerleaders or play by play commentators, tonight we will be reviewing the role of game announcers."

Last week's pregame fight was adjudicated properly just as the rule and case books state, why does my group need to make it a POE for this season?

Our problem with announcers has been elevated to the conference ADs and the state HS board. Since the rule book doesn't specifically address that issue, we will await guidance.

You still haven't addressed your stance that all POEs ever written need to be emphasized every season. Or are you just dense when it comes to the meaning of the phrase "Points of Emphasis"?

Almost always POEs involve current rules and current interpretations. There is more than the POE to reference when a POE is made. Similar to this year with the Traveling POE. They talk about very specific moves, but reference the current rules that apply. The one issue we had to hear was a POE that did not change rules or did not address in case plays or interpretation and did not change future information to support such POEs. I can tell you as an official in multiple sports, usually, POEs are right out of the rulebook in their focus or language. This is not just a basketball expectation, the NF takes a similar approach in every sport. And many rules have a thread with other sports as well when it comes to things like unsporting behavior or coaching box or sideline expectations. Billy wanted us to accept a POE years ago that was unusual and wants us to expect it to be enforced. But the issue with that is that POEs often have things in them that the rule changes later and obviously would not apply. Now we have rules for bench warnings that we did not have before. Do you think a POE 15 years earlier would apply if that was not a factor? I would think not.

Peace