Its Got No Teeth ...

[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 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.

[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.

[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.