Its Got No Teeth ...

[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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

All I might say, "Coach this is a rule....." And leave it at that.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

Already answered (but Raymond already knew that).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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)

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Raymond

If old interpretations disappear, then follow the rules and case plays as written. If they are open to interpretation, then organizations/localities need to decide how to handle the situations.

I really don't think it's that serious.

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

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"?

Originally Posted by Raymond

"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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I doubt it.

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