So exactly what I've already said 4 times in this thread and have also said in multiple posts to you in other threads? Yet you've continued this gaslighting charade that you and your state use the NFHS vanished POE as your citation.

Citation ...
 

Not quite, we use the vanished POE as a guideline, and use the unsporting conduct not limited to as the rule citation.

To me, it's not a black or white issue, but a gray issue that is nuanced.

... if there is a need.

Not all valid POE's need to be resurrected.

I work in a Fed state, so our coaches have access to the current NFHS publications, so lying to them (which I wouldn't do regardless) would only end up making my commissioner look bad.

I guess since you are in an IAABO state, you can make up non-existent citations and not have to worry about a coach/AD pulling up the rules digitally.

I doubt it. Just was not an issue in the first place. Was not widespread in the first place in Illinois. It was addressed and the culture changed when we were told to stop it. A lot of things that happen are not widespread that are addressed. A lot of things happen somewhere a committee member is and they feel they need to change it for everyone. That is fine, because it could spark up somewhere else, but not one of our issues. Information was gotten out to coaches and schools and often we never had to do a thing as officials. Not everything is at the game level. Some things are discussed with schools about that particular sport. Same with uniforms and Illinois had a big issue with uniforms because we had an administrator that cared a lot about that rule. Otherwise, it was not a problem for officials unless we did not want to personally get dinged for not following his directive. We followed his directive and the Board of Directors got involved and the situation went away. See how that works, I said nothing about the NF at all in that explanation. ;)

Peace

Judgement ...
 

Check your current rulebook:

10-5-1: Bench personnel, including the head coach, must not: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to ...

Bug In The Ear ...
 

Somebody had to put this bug into the ear of the NFHS.

You said your basis was an old POE. That's what this whole conversation is about. If you can reference the existing rules language why are you adding "vanished" nonsense to the equation.

You frequently change up your words once put on the spot about the accuracy/honesty of your statements.

As a passive observer, I'd say to you ease up.

Here's the way I understand what Billy is saying.

Suppose in 1892, the NFHS put a point of emphasis in the book that said we're seeing way too much unsporting conduct. Please enforce the sportsmanship rules. We want technical fouls called whenever anybody hangs on the peach basket or if a coach throws down his jacket or if the team gathers at midcourt.

In 1893, sportsmanship has improved so they drop it as a point of emphasis. But at least for a while everybody understands that these things are examples of TF for unsporting conduct.

Then they get rid of peach baskets. So that part doesn't apply anymore.

And then Connecticut issues a regulation about gathering at midcourt.

So the only thing we're left with is wondering, is throwing your jacket still an example of a technical foul and outside of Connecticut is gathering at midcourt still an example of a technical foul. There's no POE anymore; hasn't even been for 128 years; but vets have been telling young'uns to do it. And somewhere MTD has that rulebook ready to produce on demand.

It certainly can be included by judgment, but must it? Billy seems to say yes. I'm not sure what you'd say to that other than you're very angry that Billy says yes so maybe you mean no?

Underlying Rule ...
 

The underlying rule has to still exist for an old Point of Emphasis to be still valid. The underlying rule was always there, if not, the old Point of Emphasis becomes invalid.

10-5-1: Bench personnel, including the head coach, must not: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to ...

In this specific case, while the rule does offer some examples of unsporting conduct, it doesn't (obviously) list all examples.

The old Point of Emphasis however, does list a few additional examples.

Billy's citation for not gathering at midcourt is same as mine, his state issued guidelines (my state puts it in the clinic every year). But he has spent XXX amount of days telling us the authority we should cite to a coach is a 10-20 POE/Interpretation that is not part of the current publications.

If I'm doing something b/c that's how I interpret it should be done, then I tell the coach or my supervisor exactly that. I don't play word-games or fudge the truth about what's going on. Coaches have access to the rule and case books; I'm not going to blow smoke up their butts.

Apple Baskets ...
 

It was actually Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. who suggested to James Naismith that he no longer use peach baskets because apple baskets were stronger.

Actually, not necessarily yes. Only if needed (teaching, reference "citation", etc.).

Many old Points or Emphasis don't need to be resurrected, even if proven to still be valid. I would never suggest that every official should research every single Point of Emphasis since 1893.

But if one is aware of a "good" old one (that hasn't been deemed invalid), and has a purpose (teaching, reference "citation", etc.) for using it, then certainly use it.

Unsporting Conduct ...
 

Not what I said (remember we don't have a published guideline in Connecticut for this specific issue below).

"It's in the rules as unsporting conduct" is not a word game, nor is it fudging the truth. It's a fact and the truth.

The example of "circling the wagons" has only been mentioned once (as far as I can recall) in my little corner of Connecticut meetings, the year it was a NFHS Point of Emphasis, and it was discussed only because it was a NFHS Point of Emphasis.

And it has never been announced as invalid due to some statute of limitations (it hasn't been mentioned at all in meetings since its one and done publishing).

Yet most officials still enforce it, usually as a unofficial non-written warning (Don't do it again).

How do they know to enforce it? Do they know about the old Point of Emphasis? Maybe, but many know about it because they observe more experienced officials enforcing it.

If any young'un official (not a coach or site director) questioned me about it, I would first point them to the current rule (10-5-1) and only then tell them about the old Point of Emphasis that specifically referenced this as an example of pregame unsporting conduct.

The citation would be the current rule; the example would be from the old Point of Emphasis, the only source for this specific example here in Connecticut.

I have been saying this for years! The NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's Committees do have the resources to maintain an online collection of every Rule Book and all Casebook/Approved Ruling going back to the NBC days. Lawyers have Westlaw to access online why can't the NFHS and NCAA provide such a service.

MTD, Sr.

Cranky Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. ...
 

Isn't it time for your mid-afternoon nap? You better nap or you'll be cranky when you go to the restaurant for the early bird dinner special at 4:00 p.m.

Or do people your age call it supper?

No, it's an interpretation of unsporting behavior. It's not specifically in the rule book. I have no problem stating something is my interpretation. I don't fudge the truth to bolster my case.