Its Got No Teeth ...

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The continuing validity of old Points of Emphasis, vanished casebook plays, and annual one-time only interpretations (with no relevant rule changes or interpretation changes to invalidate such), was discussed.

Ms. Atkinson stated that as long as there are no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, old vanished interpretations are still officially considered to be valid by the NFHS. She also stated that usual reason for still valid casebook plays to be dropped is due to page limitations, when a new case play goes in, one usually has to come out.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.

[Raymond]

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.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

So in your world, POE's just build on top of each other into infinite.

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

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

"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."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"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"?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But the issue with that is that POEs often have things in them that the rule changes later and obviously would not apply.

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

However (Ms. Atkinson) 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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You still haven't addressed your stance that all POEs ever written need to be emphasized every season.

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?"

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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?

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."

[JRutledge]

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Might be good time to remind your group that such fights might be prevented if officials enforced the "circling the wagons" issue 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."

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Might be good time to remind your group that such fights might be prevented if officials enforced the "circling the wagons" issue 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."

"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.