Its Got No Teeth ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

And remember, to understand where I'm coming from, Connecticut is a 100% IAABO state, IAABO bases everything it does on NFHS rules and NFHS interpretations (IAABO does its own mechanics and signals), and the state association pretty much does everything the IAABO and NFHS "way".

Very, very seldom does my local IAABO board deviate from the IAABO state board. Very, very seldom does my IAABO state board deviate from the IAABO international board. Very, very seldom does the state association (CIAC) deviate from the IAABO state board.

It's pretty much straight line from the NFHS, through IAABO international, through the Connecticut IAABO state board, to my local board here in my little corner of Connecticut, with our Connecticut state association (CIAC) just going along for the ride.

Pretty much everything that NFHS does ends up trickling down into gyms here in my little corner of Connecticut.

That why I put so much emphasis on the NFHS, while others, like JRutledge, do non-NFHS stuff independently on their local, or state, level through their officiating organizations, or through their state associations.

We have everybody under one big NFHS tent.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

No, it's an interpretation of unsporting behavior. It's not specifically in the rule book.

Nit picking, but agree. If you enforce this, is it a personal judgement interpretation, or something from one of your organizations so that all officials in your "area" enforce such? If you don't enforce, please ignore.

In my "area" we enforce because of the example (interpretation) given in the original Point or Emphasis, it isn't a personal judgement (as long as we're aware of the Point or Emphasis).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

You may have already answered this (your state association decision) but I'm late to the gym, have to deal with a broody hen, it gets dark early now, and I don't have time to backtrack through the posts.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Nit picking, but agree. If you enforce this, is it a personal judgement interpretation, or something from one of your organizations so that all officials in your "area" enforce such? If you don't enforce, please ignore.

In my "area" we enforce because of the example (interpretation) given in the original Point or Emphasis, it isn't a personal judgement (as long as we're aware of the Point or Emphasis).



You may have already answered this (your state association decision) but I'm late to the gym, have to deal with a broody hen, it gets dark early now, and I don't have time to backtrack through the posts.

Our state has a preseason.cliniic (online) Same one is used for coaches and officials. They address pregame expectations and behavior

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Our state has a preseason clinic (online). Same one is used for coaches and officials. They address pregame expectations and behavior.

Same pregame expectations and behavior topics every year (wagon circling, center logo, both not in the current book), or not?

Rookie officials and rookie coaches would both be first time viewers of this preseason clinic. Have to avoid, "But I didn't know that"', same nagging issue we've been discussing throughout this thread.

Originally Posted by Raymond

I have no problem stating something is my interpretation.

So while you may personally agree with the (wagon circling, center logo) interpretations, they are actually "state" interpretations.

Connecticut has such a state interpretation for center logo issues, but we're dependent for NFHS Point of Emphasis for examples of wagon circling, although we could possibly do this individually, personally, and unilaterally if there was no such NFHS Point of Emphasis, but it's easier to consistently enforce with a NFHS "interpretation".

Good, or bad, so goes the NFHS, so goes Connecticut.

[Raymond]

I tell players to stay away from the center circle. I redirect them away when they do go that direction. It makes sense to me. Is it printed somewhere every year? I don't know. But I'm doing it anyway.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I tell players to stay away from the center circle. I redirect them away when they do go that direction. It makes sense to me.

Same as I do. Just shoo them away. No technical foul (if I did, that would be last basketball game that I ever officiated). No written warning. I don't even mention it to the coach, or site director, unless they ask why.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No technical foul. No written warning.

That assumes that none of the visitor players, usually starters, are spitting on the home team's center circle logo.

That was a big problem here in Connecticut several years ago, especially in state tournament games. Led to a few fights and almost fights. Things got much better after the NFHS Point of Emphasis was published.

If this behavior were to ever return, I would definitely consider an official written warning, or maybe a small chance of a technical foul after consulting with my partner. Likely depends on whether, or not, the players pretend to clean the soles of their shoes in the spit (plausible deniability).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That assumes that none of the visitor players, usually starters, are spitting on the home team's center circle logo.

That was a big problem here in Connecticut several years ago, especially in state tournament games. Led to a few fights and almost fights. Things got much better after the NFHS Point of Emphasis was published.
...

I wouldn't have waited for the NFHS to publish a POE. I would tell the idiots to knock it off and if the coaches had a problem with my handling of the situation they could have taken it up with my assignor and the state governing body.

I like that my commissioner expects us to show common sense and make good decisions.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I wouldn't have waited for the NFHS to publish a POE.

The POE and problem in Connecticut happened practically simultaneously. From what I heard through the grapevine, players pretended to clean the soles of their shoes, making it difficult to determine intent. I wonder if Connecticut was one of the states that initiated this POE?

While spitting on the center circle logo pre-POE can certainly be considered unsporting, the POE goes a step further to not even allow the players there to begin with, certainly not (with no spitting) an unsporting act before the POE, but a good example of preventive officiating.

As long as they're in front of their team bench, they can spit and clean their shoes all they want. Hell, they don't even have to clean their shoes. Disgusting, but probably not unsporting or illegal.

Taking out the spitting factor, if officials were to ask players to stay out of the center circle pre-POE, I'm not sure they would have any rule or interpretation backing. Now we do (local, state, or NFHS), and I'm sure that it has prevented some fights or some almost fights.

[Robert Goodman]

Going by nothing but common sense, it seems to me the purpose of a Point of Emphasis is to say, in effect, "We're getting lots of complaints that our officials are neglecting [whatever]. The rule on this is already written the way we want it, there's no need to clarify it, people are just forgetting it in administering the game. So please try to remember it."

Still going by common sense, if points of emphasis kept accumulating, eventually everything would be a "point of emphasis". And when everything is a point of emphasis, nothing is. Because you can emphasize some things only at the expense of attention to others. As magicians know, attention is a limited resource, and if you tell someone to focus on X, they have to take at least some focus off Y. Once you're satisfied enough attention is being paid to X, there's no need to keep emphasizing it, and continuing to do so would be counterproductive to overall administration.

Not being a reader of Fed basketball rules, what I gather from reading here is that Fed may be chronically abusing the concept of a Point of Emphasis, and labeling things as POE that are really not, such as interpretations. (This may be specific to some sports, as I haven't seen such abuse in football.) You can emphasize an interpretation (although the need to do so calls into question whether the underlying rule is written adequately), but the POE itself should not be an interpretation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Going by nothing but common sense, it seems to me the purpose of a Point of Emphasis is to say, in effect, "We're getting lots of complaints that our officials are neglecting [whatever]. The rule on this is already written the way we want it, there's no need to clarify it, people are just forgetting it in administering the game. So please try to remember it."

Still going by common sense, if points of emphasis kept accumulating, eventually everything would be a "point of emphasis". And when everything is a point of emphasis, nothing is. Because you can emphasize some things only at the expense of attention to others. As magicians know, attention is a limited resource, and if you tell someone to focus on X, they have to take at least some focus off Y. Once you're satisfied enough attention is being paid to X, there's no need to keep emphasizing it, and continuing to do so would be counterproductive to overall administration.

Not being a reader of Fed basketball rules, what I gather from reading here is that Fed may be chronically abusing the concept of a Point of Emphasis, and labeling things as POE that are really not, such as interpretations. (This may be specific to some sports, as I haven't seen such abuse in football.) You can emphasize an interpretation (although the need to do so calls into question whether the underlying rule is written adequately), but the POE itself should not be an interpretation.

I do not think POEs are about just the officials. POEs are about everyone involved in the game. Many things are because coaches complain about things and are not aware of the actual rules. I see officials call many things that are pointed out before a POE comes out, but the reality is that coaches complain or suggest the rule is something else. Even the traveling POE this year I am sure is because there are officials that actually call these things properly, but get a lot of blowbacks. Look at what the NCAA did about traveling? They basically said not to call things that are not egregious, even though there were officials properly calling travels, but when they did, the coaches and players would act like "That is a good move" or say, "He gets 2 and a half steps" which is not the rule. So the POE is to deal with what is often misunderstood, not what officials are necessarily doing. Because they almost never reference what officials are not calling, they focus on the rule or the way they wish it to be addressed. Similar to the timeout acknowledgment and even put in the POE, "Coaches have to understand that official's focus is not on them requesting a timeout" or something to that effect.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

... it seems to me the purpose of a Point of Emphasis is to say, in effect, "We're getting lots of complaints that our officials are neglecting [whatever]. The rule on this is already written the way we want it, there's no need to clarify it, people are just forgetting it in administering the game. So please try to remember it." ... if points of emphasis kept accumulating, eventually everything would be a "point of emphasis". And when everything is a point of emphasis, nothing is ... Once you're satisfied enough attention is being paid to X, there's no need to keep emphasizing it, and continuing to do so would be counterproductive to overall administration ... Fed may be chronically abusing the concept of a Point of Emphasis, and labeling things as POE that are really not, such as interpretations ... You can emphasize an interpretation (although the need to do so calls into question whether the underlying rule is written adequately), but the POE itself should not be an interpretation.

Agree. Extremely well written. Especially when the "interpretation" from an old one and done POE can't be found in the most current book.

Many times the same POE is resurrected by the NFHS, sometimes more than twice, meaning that the NFHS considers that an issue continues to be neglected.

I believe it was JRutledge who posted earlier that the NFHS should not be using POE to introduce new rules, or new interpretations, and I agree with him.

Yet the NFHS still occasionally does it, and it often leads to lively debate for the rule "watchers" here on the Forum.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think POEs are about just the officials.

Great statement. POE are for all the stakeholders in the game. Sometimes it's the coaches, athletic directors, table personnel, cheerleading coach, pep band director, etc., who are neglecting an issue, or not properly teaching an issue.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Going by nothing but common sense, it seems to me the purpose of a Point of Emphasis is to say, in effect, "We're getting lots of complaints that our officials are neglecting [whatever]. The rule on this is already written the way we want it, there's no need to clarify it, people are just forgetting it in administering the game. So please try to remember it."

Still going by common sense, if points of emphasis kept accumulating, eventually everything would be a "point of emphasis". And when everything is a point of emphasis, nothing is. Because you can emphasize some things only at the expense of attention to others. As magicians know, attention is a limited resource, and if you tell someone to focus on X, they have to take at least some focus off Y. Once you're satisfied enough attention is being paid to X, there's no need to keep emphasizing it, and continuing to do so would be counterproductive to overall administration.

Not being a reader of Fed basketball rules, what I gather from reading here is that Fed may be chronically abusing the concept of a Point of Emphasis, and labeling things as POE that are really not, such as interpretations. (This may be specific to some sports, as I haven't seen such abuse in football.) You can emphasize an interpretation (although the need to do so calls into question whether the underlying rule is written adequately), but the POE itself should not be an interpretation.

I think you're pretty much spot on. I've had many occasions, especially at the college level, where a coach thinks we missed a called and the will add "that's a POE". They are not talking about 2010 or 2015. I think the NFHS is sloppy when it comes to rules, and giving an interpretation and publishing it as a POE is but one example.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I've had many occasions, especially at the college level, where a coach thinks we missed a called and the will add "that's a POE".

Same here on the high school level. They attend one preseason coaches presentation and they suddenly think that they're rule experts, when, of course, they usually have absolutely no concept regarding the nuances and subtle aspects of the POE.

Sometimes, when I'm sitting at my first local meeting of the season, going over that year's new POE, I can often predict what the coaches will hear, and more importantly, not hear, thinking to myself, "Oh no, we'll be hearing about this from coaches all season long".

Our local interpreter can't use the same preseason presentation for the coaches as he does for officials. Two different audiences, two different presentations.