Its Got No Teeth ...

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

... you and your state use the NFHS vanished POE as your 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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

... if there is a need.

Not all valid POE's need to be resurrected.