Its Got No Teeth ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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. I don't play word-games or fudge the truth about what's going on.

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

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If I were to say to a coach, or a site director, "Don't let your players circle around their opponents during the layup lines" and received a response, "Show it to me in the regs", I wouldn't go into a long dissertation regarding the validity of a old Point of Emphasis no longer the current book. I would simply say, "It's in the "regs" as unsporting conduct".

"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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

...

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.

[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.

[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 ...