Teaching Tool ...
 

My personal stance. No they do not.

Here's my stance. If one is aware of a specific Point of Emphasis that may be valuable as a teaching tool, use it, especially the purpose and intent of such.

Not to be used as a teaching tool every year, and certainly not every single valid Point of Emphasis that ever existed.

Of course, how many Points of Emphasis one is aware of will vary from official to official based on their years of experience. With my forty years of experience, I have no desire to research and go back fifty years to research Points of Emphasis before my time.

However, if cited by an official who is more experienced than me, I will pay attention. Also, if I were to be elected as a local interpreter, I might try to research such to best prepare for my new job.

Young'un: "Hey BillyMac. I almost had a fight break out before my middle school game last week as players circled around their opponents during the layup lines. Anything I could have done about that?"

Young'un: "Hey BillyMac. I had an announcer announce, "How could she miss that easy layup?" in my junior varsity game last night. It seemed inappropriate. Anything I could have done about that?"

Rule Changes ...
 

Agree 100%. And if you believe it (which you don't have to, and I will probably have no way to verify), so does the NFHS.

Yes, I'm convinced you don't know what POEs are and what their purpose is.

Ounce Of Prevention ...
 

Might be good time to remind a group that such fights might be prevented if officials enforced the "circling the wagons" guideline before every game in which such (without the fight aspect) occurs.

"Hey coach (or site director). The NFHS has issued guidelines that bans players circling around their opponents during the layup lines. Not tonight, but fights have been known to break out during such. Please don't let your players do that in future games."

If you never put an interpretation in the rules book or case book that you use for a POE, then something tells me you did not have agreement on its usage in the first place. And POEs do not create rules, they are to highlight existing rules.

Peace

I am not having that much conversation about any rule or ruling we make. Sorry, if I have to reference the NF in a discussion in that manner, then I have already lost them.

Peace

Tossed Into The Trash And Forgotten ...
 

As I think you mean, I agree, they are indeed a Point of Emphasis only for the year issued.

After that, they are no longer Points of Emphasis, but the content of such, especially the purpose and intent, and in some cases, the specific "interpretations", may still be of value, not just to be tossed into the trash and forgotten.

To The Point ...
 

How about: "Hey coach (or site director). Don't let your players circle around their opponents during the layup lines."

Note: I only put the, "Not tonight, but fights have been known to break out during such", in there to clarify to the Forum that this was not a game in which a fight occurred.

Expound Upon And Clarify ...
 

Agree. Highlight, but also to often expound upon and clarify.

Otherwise the NFHS would simply print the rule under the heading Point of Emphasis (which they sometimes do).

My point is that if I have to invoke the NF, then that will fall on deaf ears. We have a sports administrator who they all know and a governing body that directly is over the events. And many things like this are already in the literature or rules meetings so to discuss them further would be kind of silly unless referencing the rules video. We had to deal with that particular situation for a year and after that no one violated that rule anymore. And the directive came from the IHSA before the NF even mentioned this. So again, if I have to mention the NF specifically by name to discuss a rule like this, I have lost them. Heck, we do not have time to go through that kind of stuff anyway in my experience. All I might say, "Coach this is a rule....." And leave it at that.

Peace

"Show it to me in the regs."

If a school asks for clarification on a ruling that is not clearly and unambiguously addressed in the current year rulebook, casebook, or published interpretations, it's gets elevated to the state. PERIOD

And from that point on we tell coaches/ADs that "the VHSL (state body) has ruled....." There is no mention of the NFHS. We don't care what basis the VHSL uses for its ruling, that's their business. It could be a 30 year-old vanished interpretation, it could be a 25 year-old POE that no longer needs to be emphasized, or it could be a common sense decision.

This Is A Rule ...
 

Agree.

While your local, or state, association successfully dealt with this issue previous to the Point of Emphasis, independently without the NFHS, my state association only decided to deal with this issue after the NFHS Point of Emphasis was published.

Our big Connecticut problem was not the "circle the wagons" problem, but the congregating on the school logo problem.

Because it was a one and done Point of Emphasis, not appearing in the current book (other than as an unsporting "not limited to" citation) our officials are reminded of this every year as a Connecticut IAABO guideline:

Team members are not allowed to congregate at division line, or on school logo, during introductions.

Your state might have been one (or the only) of the states that caused that the NFHS to deal with this issue.

Why does your state need a guideline if it was already an interpretation (or POE) 10-15 years ago?

Not Limited To ...
 

Connecticut has a written IAABO state board "reg", approved by the state association, regarding the congregating on the school logo problem. We do not have a circle the wagons "reg" specifically in writing anywhere, so we rely on the NFHS guidelines, guidelines that originally were a NFHS Point of Emphasis, but are no longer "emphasized", and of course, are no longer in the current book (but the underlying rule still is).

If I were to say to a coach, or a site director, "Don't let your players circle around their opponents during the layup lines" and received a response, "Show it to me in the regs", I wouldn't go into a long dissertation regarding the validity of a old Point of Emphasis no longer the current book. I would simply say, "It's in the "regs" as unsporting conduct".

And I might even followup with an email to my assigner, who acts as the liaison between officials and schools, who I am 100% certain would back me up.

One And Done ...
 

Already answered (but Raymond already knew that).

For inexperienced officials.

... and the crux of this issue.

You don't know what you don't know.

But if you know it, and there have been no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, use it, especially when you have a rule citation (unsporting conduct not limited to) to back it up.